Turvey Business Park Ltd v Leo Bentley and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: (Hogan J.)
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] IEHC 539
• Court: High Court
• Date: 29 July 2011

[2011] IEHC 539

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 2615 S/2009]

Turvey Business Park Ltd v Bentley & Ors

BETWEEN

TURVEY BUSINESS PARK LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

AND

LEO BENTLEY AND SUSAN BENTLEY

DEFENDANTS

CONSTITUTION ART 40

WALEK & CO KG v SEAFIELD GENTEX 1978 IR 167

PRENDERGAST v BIDDLE UNREP SUPREME 31.7.1957

LANDLORD AND TENANT

Lease

Rent - Certificate - Whether certificate properly certified - Whether certificates under lease should be strictly construed - Insurance - Whether demand for pro-rata payment of insurance premium valid - Whether issue of hypothecation of sum arose - Interest - Whether lease unclear on interest - Whether most sensible construction was for interest to run from 28 days after date of demand - Parties - Whether plaintiff appropriate party - Whether lessor - lessee to be treated as one - Whether defendants estopped by conduct from raising objection to plaintiff as correct party - Whether generalised claim relating to service level provided by plaintiff could be set off against claim for liquidated debt - Whether interest should be calculated on estimated or certified amounts - In re Footman Bower & Co Ltd [1961] Ch 443, Walek & Co KG v Seafield Gentex [1978] IR 167 and Prendergast v Biddle (Unrep, SC, 31/7/1957) considered - Matters decided (2009/2615S - Hogan J - 29/7/2011) [2011] IEHC 539

Turvey Business Park Ltd v Bentley

Facts: The parties had engaged in litigation in relation to service charges the plaintiff claimed were outstanding. A summary judgment was obtained in favour of the plaintiff in an earlier hearing (see [2011] IEHC 535). The Court now in an ex-tempore judgment sought to resolve a number of supplementary matters.

Held by Hogan J, that four matters were to be decided by the Court. Firstly, the Court considered that the same standards of strictness in relation to Criminal matters did not apply here, and an accountants' report (equating to a certificate) issued in 2009 was therefore to be treated as validly certificated.

Secondly, a payment of €4000 made in 2009 was to be split between an outstanding insurance premium and an outstanding debt on another account. Thirdly, interest was to run from the date of demand, allowing for a reasonable period of payment. The Court held interest was therefore due from 28 days after the date of demand.

Finally, the Court that the defendants were estopped from raising the point of whom the appropriate plaintiff was in the matter. This estoppel was due to the defendants' course of dealing, and an alternative remedy was available.

The hearing was adjourned to allow discussions on costs.

1 NOTE OF THE EX-TEMPORE RULING of the High Court (Hogan J.) which was delivered on the 29th July, 2011.

2 1. I have already given a written judgment in this matter and the principles set out in that judgment form the basis for this latest supplementary ruling. There are four matters for me to decide.

(a) Whether the 2009 Certificate was properly certified.

3 2. I am satisfied that the 2009 certificate was properly certified. Counsel for the defendants, Ms. Moriarty, argued that it was not and she advanced that argument for a number of essentially technically reasons. For my part, I would rather apply the principle contained in my earlier judgment. The certificates do not require the same degree of strictness as might be required in the case of, for example, a search warrant or where there is an application made for the release of a...