Courts

High Court rules doctor was incorrect in claiming she owed lower rent

Mr Justice Anthony Barr says GP was incorrect that the €50,000 per year in rent which the landlord said was due had never been agreed and that it should be €29,000

Following consideration of evidence in the High Court, Mr Justice Anthony Barr said he was satisfied the defendant was incorrect in all of her primary arguments about the level of rent due. Photograph: The Irish Times

Wed Jul 3 2024 - 17:54

The High Court has found a doctor was incorrect in her claims that she only had to pay a lower figure for rent than claimed by the landlord of the premises housing her practice in Stepaside, Dublin.

Mr Justice Anthony Barr said Dr Fiona Grant, a GP, was incorrect in her arguments that the €50,000 per year rent which the landlord said was due had never been agreed and that the actual rent was €29,000. The judge also said she was incorrect in claiming that there had not been a rent review in 2014.

The landlord, Gradual Investments Ltd, had brought proceedings against her over the rent being paid for her medical clinic at the Village in Stepaside.

Dr Grant last year obtained an injunction preventing Gradual from entering or re-entering the premises on foot of a forfeiture notice pending determination of legal proceedings. That injunction remains in place at least until the case next comes before the court.

READ MORE

Separately, Gradual’s case over the allegedly unpaid rent came on for hearing before Mr Justice Barr.

The judge said it was the legal implications of the facts rather than significant factual disputes which give rise to the need for a determination by the court.

Following consideration of the evidence, the judge said he was satisfied that the defendant was incorrect in all of her primary arguments about the rent.

He said the court “has nothing but sympathy for a tenant who finds themselves in financial difficulties vis-a-vis their lease”.

This was all the more so where the tenant is a medical professional contributing so much to society by providing primary care in the community, he said.

While his judgment would come as a major disappointment to Dr Grant, and that was a matter of sincere regret on a human level, he said, the court’s obligation was “to give effect to the bargains made by interpreting their meaning, not to change meaning by way of deletion or addition”.

LATEST STORIES