Dublin Corporation v. Burke [2001] IESC 81 (9 October 2001)

Dublin Corporation v. Burke [2001] IESC 81 (9 October 2001)

Where a defendant presents a stateable and arguable claim to tenancy with supporting evidence, and the plaintiff merely doubts its truth, interlocutory injunctions should not be granted to remove the alleged tenant or restrain occupation, especially where damages would not be an adequate remedy and property rights...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] IESC 81
Parties
Plaintiff: Dublin Corporation; Defendant: Thomas Burke
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Interlocutory Injunction, Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutory injunctions set aside.
Legal Topics
Tenancy, Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Registered Land, Section 72 Burdens
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Tenancy Injunctions Balance of Convenience Registered Land Section 72 Burdens

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dublin Corporation

Plaintiff

Thomas Burke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Interlocutory Injunction, Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted against an alleged tenant in occupation of property
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a tenancy and rights of occupation under landlord and tenant law
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favours granting or refusing injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant presents a stateable and arguable claim to tenancy with supporting evidence, and the plaintiff merely doubts its truth, interlocutory injunctions should not be granted to remove the alleged tenant or restrain occupation, especially where damages would not be an adequate remedy and property rights might be lost. The balance of convenience favours refusal of injunctions in such circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutory injunctions set aside.

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunctions granted by the High Court are discharged.
  • Status quo to be retained pending trial; defendant not to be removed from occupation.