Beacon One Management Company clg v Beacon Leisure Investments Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Allen
• Judgment Date: 23 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 556
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 8403 P.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 23 July 2019

BETWEEN

BEACON ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY CLG

PLAINTIFF

AND

BEACON LEISURE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

DEFENDANT

[2019] IEHC 556

Allen J.

[2018 No. 8403 P.]

THE HIGH COURT

Interlocutory orders – Deeds – Right of access – Plaintiff seeking interlocutory orders – Whether the plaintiff or the owners of apartments at The One Beacon Apartments were entitled to a general right of access through the interconnecting doors between the apartments and the defendant’s hotel

Facts: The plaintiff, Beacon One Management Company clg, was the management company of Block E of Beacon Court, a large mixed-use development in Sandyford, County Dublin comprising a number of a blocks, apartments, shops, offices, a hotel, and a hospital. By plenary summons issued on 24th September, 2018, the plaintiff claimed an injunction restraining the hotel of the defendant, Beacon Leisure Investments Ltd, from interfering with or restricting access from The One Beacon Apartments to the defendant’s adjacent hotel. By notice of motion issued on 20th November, 2018, the plaintiff moved for interlocutory orders and there was an exchange of affidavits. It was recognised by both sides that the case turned on the construction of a number of deeds and the parties agreed that the High Court should finally decide the dispute. Mr Beatty S.C., for the plaintiff, argued the case by reference, first, to a sample lease of one of the apartments and the deed of transfer to the plaintiff of the block, before looking at the defendant’s lease, in which he pointed to a number of inconsistencies which he attributed to problematic drafting. Mr O’Connell S.C., for the defendant, argued that legally and logically the correct approach was to look at the several deeds in the order in which they were executed, and suggested that if that was done, the difficulties identified by Mr Beatty would be seen to be difficulties with the construction for which he contended rather than any shortcoming or inconsistency in draughtsmanship. Further, Mr O’Connell pointed out that the hotel lease was the first in time so that even if the apartment leases did purport to create the rights contended for (which he said they did not) the earlier deeds must prevail.

Held by Allen J that, in principle, Mr O’Connell was correct. Allen J held that if the developer in a later lease purported to grant easements over lands devised by an earlier lease without exception or reservation, the earlier lease takes priority as a matter of law; moreover, the plaintiff was party to all of the relevant deeds so no issue as to priority of registration arose. Allen J held that the apartment leases made between Taleside Developments Ltd, Beacon Court (Sandyford) Management Ltd, Beacon One Management Company Ltd and the purchasers of the apartments in The One Beacon Apartments did not create a general right of access through the interconnecting doors between the apartments and the Beacon Court Hotel. Allen J held that neither Beacon One Management Company clg nor the owners of apartments at The One Beacon Apartments were entitled to a general right of access through the interconnecting doors between the apartments and the Beacon Court Hotel.

Allen J held that Beacon Leisure Investments Ltd was entitled to restrict the use by the owners and occupiers of the apartments at The One Beacon Apartments of the interconnecting doors between the apartments and the hotel, to a way of egress, in the event of emergency, from the apartments over the lobbies and stairwells within the hotel.

Orders refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Allen delivered on the 23rd day of July, 2019

Introduction

1 Beacon Court is a large mixed-use development in Sandyford, Co. Dublin. It comprises, in a number of a blocks, apartments, shops, offices, a hotel, and a hospital.

2 Block E comprises, on one side, about 70 apartments over seven floors and, on the other, a hotel. At the end of the corridors on each of the second to seventh floors on the apartment side, there are doors which lead to the hotel. Immediately behind the doors (coming from the apartment side) is a small lobby which opens, on one side, into a stairwell and, on the other, into the hotel.

3 The block was built and sold in 2005. The apartments were marketed under the name ‘ One Beacon’ and described in the glossy sales brochure as ‘ an aparthotel development’ and as a unique place to live, which combined, beautifully, the comfort of a home with the convenience of a superior hotel. The same documentation suggested that hotel services were, or would be, available at One Beacon comprising room service, food, dry cleaning and restaurant bookings, with the caveat that hotel services were subject to changes.

4 The advertisements published by the developer in 2005 offered ‘ a slice of Miami life in Dublin's Southside’ and held out the prospect that purchasers would ‘ live within Dublin's most cosmopolitan hotel – the Beacon – and avail of its facilities …’ as well as benefit from the medical and consultants' clinics and the hospital, then in the course of construction.

5 The lavish specification promised included (besides the marbled bathrooms with jacuzzi style baths, and the like, all de rigueur at the time) a private residents' lobby and hotel lobby access.

6 Since the block was completed, the apartment owners have had access through the doors at the end of the corridors, through the access lobbies, into the stairwell, and along the hotel bedroom corridors to the lifts serving the hotel lobby.

7 In 2016 the hotel changed hands. The new operator was unhappy that the apartment owners and their tenants had free access to the hotel and gave notice of its intention to deactivate the fob access on the doors, but to link the door locks to the fire alarm in the apartment building, so as to allow egress through the hotel in the event of fire.

8 The issue now before the court is whether the hotelier is entitled to do what it has said it intends to do or whether the owners and occupiers of the apartments are entitled to come through the hotel as they heretofore have been doing.

9 There is some difference of opinion as to whether the decision of the hotel to close the doors was justified by the behaviour of those coming through the hotel, but it is accepted on both sides that the case must turn on whether, as a matter of law, the hotel is entitled to restrict access.

10 I should emphasise that, for the moment, for reasons to which I will come, the summary I have given of the development and marketing of the apartments is by way of mise-en-scene only, to explain how the dispute has come before the court.

The proceedings

11 This action was commenced by plenary summons issued on 24th September, 2018, by which the plaintiff, the management company of the block, claimed an injunction restraining the hotel from interfering with or restricting access from the One Beacon apartments to the defendant's adjacent hotel.

12 By notice of motion issued on 20th November, 2018 the plaintiff moved for interlocutory orders and there was an exchange of affidavits. It was recognised by both sides, however, that the case turns on the construction of a number of deeds and the parties agreed that the court, on this application, should finally decide the dispute.

13 The plaintiff, as I have said, is the management company for the block but the action, for all practical purposes, is brought for the benefit of the apartment owners. The defendant wishes to see the substantive issued disposed of and Mr. Micheál O'Connell S.C., for the defendant, does not make the point that one or all of the apartment owners ought to have been, or ought to have been joined as, plaintiffs.

14 Mr. Robert Beatty S.C., for the plaintiff, argues the case by reference, first, to a sample lease of one of the apartments and the deed of transfer to the plaintiff of the block, before looking at the defendant's lease, in which he points to a number of inconsistencies which he attributes to problematic drafting.

15 Mr. O'Connell, however, argues that legally and logically the correct approach is to look at the several deeds in the order in which they were executed, and suggests that if that is done, the difficulties identified by Mr. Beatty will be seen to be difficulties with the construction for which he contends rather than any shortcoming or inconsistency in draughtsmanship. Further, Mr. O'Connell points out that the hotel lease was the first in time so that even if the apartment leases did purport to create the rights contended for (which he says they did not) the earlier deeds must prevail.

16 In principle, Mr. O'Connell is correct. If the developer in a later lease purported to grant easements over lands devised by an earlier lease without exception or reservation, the earlier lease takes priority as a matter of law. Moreover, the plaintiff, as will be seen, was party to all of the relevant deeds so no issue as to priority of registration arises.

Legal principles

17 Before looking at the deeds, it is useful to recall the legal principles applicable to construction of deeds, upon which counsel are agreed.

18 In The Square Management Limited v. Dunnes Stores Dublin Company [2017] IECA 256, the Court of Appeal cited with approval the summary of the law by the authors of Wylie & Woods, Irish Conveyancing Law (3rd ed., 2005) where it is said:-

‘[17.15] The overriding rule of construction of a deed is to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the deed. It is important to note that this does not justify the ignoring of the express words in pursuance of what is otherwise conceived to be the intention of the parties. The essential question is what is the meaning of the words actually used by the parties, not what did the parties mean to say and, perhaps, fail to make clear by the words they used. As Ball J. put it in O'Donnell v. Ryan (1854) 4 I.C.L.R. 44: -

...