AIM Cash & Carry Ltd -v- All Points Building & Maintenance Ltd [2014] IEHC 555 (25 November 2014)

AIM Cash & Carry Ltd -v- All Points Building & Maintenance Ltd [2014] IEHC 555 (25 November 2014)

The applicant failed to establish a strong arguable case for the existence of a binding agreement for a further lease or that the respondent and head landlord should be treated as a single economic entity. The relief sought was mandatory in nature, requiring a higher threshold. There was no sufficient certainty in the alleged agreement or the terms of the injunction sought. The respondent no longer had any interest in the premises. Damages were found to be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 555
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: AIM Cash and Carry Limited; Defendant/respondent: Allpoints Building and Maintenance Limited; Plaintiff/applicant: Only Three Euro Limited; Defendant/respondent: Tamco Management Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Plenary Proceedings / Application for Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Specific Performance, Corporate Veil, Landlord and Tenant, Mandatory Injunctions
Property Law Company Law Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Specific Performance Corporate Veil Landlord and Tenant Mandatory Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AIM Cash and Carry Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Allpoints Building and Maintenance Limited

Defendant/respondent

Only Three Euro Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Tamco Management Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Plenary Proceedings / Application for Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory relief restraining ejectment and compelling specific performance of an alleged agreement for a further lease
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a strong arguable case for the existence and enforceability of such agreement
  3. 3 Whether the respondent and head landlord should be treated as a single economic entity for the purposes of relief

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a strong arguable case for the existence of a binding agreement for a further lease or that the respondent and head landlord should be treated as a single economic entity. The relief sought was mandatory in nature, requiring a higher threshold. There was no sufficient certainty in the alleged agreement or the terms of the injunction sought. The respondent no longer had any interest in the premises. Damages were found to be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • Relief sought is refused