Camiveo Ltd v Dunnes Stores

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 18 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 19
• Date: 18 February 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Record No: S:AP:IE:2019:000163 High Court Record No: 2015 No. 5742 P

BETWEEN

CAMIVEO LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

AND

DUNNES STORES

DEFENDANT

[2020] IESCDET 19

Clarke C.J.

Dunne J.

O'Malley J.

Supreme Court Record No: S:AP:IE:2019:000163

Court of Appeal Record No: A:AP:IE:2017:000285

High Court Record No: 2015 No. 5742 P

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Plaintiff / Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 9th May 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 27th May 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 30th July 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 14TH AUGUST 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 In that context, it should be noted that the respondent does oppose the grant of leave.

Decision

4 As appears from the notices filed, the dispute in these proceedings involves issues concerning the proper interpretation of a lease entered into between the respondent to this application (“Camiveo”), as landlord, and the applicant for leave to appeal (“Dunnes Stores”), as tenant, over a property known as “the anchor unit” which was situated within a shopping centre operated by Camiveo. The dispute centred on whether there was an obligation on the part of Dunnes Stores to leave certain doors to the anchor unit open so as to provide access to other parts of the shopping centre. An important aspect of the dispute centred on the question of the proper interpretation of the planning permission in respect of the premises in question. The lease concerned provided that the parties were to comply with any...