Dunnes Stores (Bangor) Limited v (1) New River Trustee 11 Limited (2) New River Trustee 12 Limited
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Deeny J |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NICh 7 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 24 February 2015 |
| Year | 2015 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NICh 7 Ref:
DEE9546
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
24/02/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
CHANCERY DIVISON
_______
2015/2631
IN THE MATTER OF PREMISES KNOWN AS UNIT 45, ABBEY CENTRE,
LONGWOOD ROAD, NEWTOWNABBEY, BELFAST
DUNNES STORES (BANGOR) LIMITED
Plaintiff;
-and-
(1) NEW RIVER TRUSTEE 11 LIMITED
(2) NEW RIVER TRUSTEE 12 LIMITED
Defendants.
________
DEENY J
[1] The plaintiff company, Dunnes Stores (Bangor) Limited (“Dunnes”), is the
owner of Unit 45, a major unit at the Abbey Centre, Newtownabbey, County Antrim.
It holds it on a long leasehold title of 1 March 1982, of which 117 years are
unexpired, from the predecessor in title of the defendants who became the owners of
the centre on 22 August 2014.
[2] On 12 January 2015 the plaintiff caused to have issued a writ of summons in
the Chancery Division. They sought an injunction restraining the defendants from
altering in any way the premises at the Abbey Centre in such manner as to derogate
from the grant to the plaintiff of their leasehold estate of 1 March 1982, or to interfere
with the covenant for quiet enjoyment or with their rights of way or to cause
nuisance to them. Damages were claimed in the alternative. On the same day
Mr Mark Orr QC for Dunnes, with whom Miss Anneliese Day Q.C. and Mr Adrian
Colmer appeared, sought an ex parte injunction from the court on the basis that the
defendants were already commencing works in breach of his client’s rights.
2
[3] Their concern arises from the express intention of the defendants to make a
significant alteration to the centre closely adjacent to the plaintiff’s premises. The
defendants propose to build a large new unit extending over the existing eastern
mall entrance and four adjoining units.
[4] The defendants learnt of this ex parte application and Mr Brett Lockhart Q.C.
appeared when the matter came before me seeking to be heard. His own
instructions at this stage were limited. It is sufficient for these purposes to say that
the court granted an ex parte order restraining certain works at that time. A
subsequent application on 14 January led to an amendment of the Order on
15 January effectively allowing the defendants to complete its enabling works in a
way that did not prejudice the on-going concerns of the plaintiff. No difficulty has
arisen in practice from the implementation of that interim amended Order. The
matter was listed for a full interlocutory inter-partes hearing on 4 February 2015
which was completed on 9 February. The court had the assistance of cogent and
helpful written and oral arguments from counsel on both sides.
Interlocutory injunctions
[5] The law in relation to interlocutory injunctions was clarified in the landmark
judgment of the House of Lords in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975]
AC 396. There is a tendency to over summarise and therefore blur the effect of the
judgment of Lord Diplock in that case. For convenience I quote my own analysis of
the matter in McLaughlin & Harvey Limited v Department of Finance and Personnel
[2008] NIQB 122 at paragraph [6], cited, inter alia, in Lamey v Belfast Health and
Social Care Trust [2013] NIQB 91 and Coutts v Collins [2014] NI Ch 24:
“It can be seen that the test laid down by the House of
Lords, is sequential.
(i) Has the plaintiff shown there is at least a
serious issue to be tried?
(ii) If it has, has it shown the damages would not
be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff and
would be an adequate remedy for the
defendants if an injunction were granted and it
ultimately succeeded?
(iii) If there is doubt about the issue of damages the
court will then address the balance of
convenience between the parties.
(iv) Where other factors are evenly balanced it is
prudent to preserve the status quo.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The Square Management Ltd v Dunnes Stores Dublin Company
...resemblance to the circumstances now before this Court. Thus in Dunnes Stores (Bangor) Limited v. New River Trustee 11 Limited and Anor [2015] NICh 7, the plaintiff sought from the High Court of Northern Ireland injunctive relief restraining the landlord from carrying out development on adj......