:quality(70):focal(3076x882:3086x892)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/4ERLUHH5UZBJ5HNQXRTTNCTM6A.jpg)
A South Dublin family doctor has secured a temporary High Court injunction restraining her landlord from repossessing the premises where her medical centre has been based for many years.
On Tuesday Mr Justice Oisín Quinn granted Dr Fiona Grant an interim injunction preventing Gradual Investments Limited from entering or re-entering a premises that operates as a medical clinic at The Village, Stepaside.
The court heard the parties have been in dispute for some time over alleged unpaid rent.
Gradual Investments, which acquired the commercial unit in 2015 from the previous owner, has sued Dr Grant seeking what it claims are rent arrears, unpaid rent, interest and service charges.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/2DUCJNYDRJCNPODCKPXSULVBWM.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/I75Y7CBYYBBURJZAOZ2HA2RJNI.jpg)
:quality(70):focal(1541x894:1551x904)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/KQ3ENUVTYJA6NEBKF6VREJTENM.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/JARVN5NOTBAU5CICBTVKLSFUHY.jpg)
Dr Grant denies all those claims and says that while the hearing of the landlord’s claim against her is pending before the courts, Gradual Investments issued a number of forfeiture notices in respect of the lease for the property.
Dr Grant says her landlord is not entitled to forfeit the lease she first entered into in 2009 or to take any steps including re-entering and repossessing the facility in Stepaside.
At the High Court on Tuesday, Dr Grant’s barrister, Dean Regan, said his client has been in the premises for many years and has always paid rent in advance, bar on one occasion in March 2020 when the pandemic struck.
He said his client had come to court with “great reluctance” and it “beggars belief what the landlord is doing” regarding its claims that a forfeiture of the lease has occurred.
His client has been dealing with this dispute for the last three years, and the latest development had left her “surprised if not exhausted”, counsel said.
As a result of a missed payment in 2020, it is claimed by the landlord that Dr Grant breached an “abated” rental agreement entered into between the parties.
Counsel said she denies the claims against her on grounds including that any breach was minimal.
Counsel said that last year the High Court dismissed Gradual’s claim for summary judgment against Dr Grant for alleged rental arrears, charges and interest of over €140,000.
The court heard Dr Grant raised a defence to the summary judgment application that needs to be determined by way of a full or plenary hearing of that dispute.
Counsel said that in a further set of related proceedings Dr Grant is suing Gradual Investments for allegedly providing details of Dr Grant’s financial situation with people including other employees at the medical facility, which, it is claimed, amounts to a breach of her data protection rights.
While those two cases have yet to be determined, counsel said, Gradual Investments issued his client with a forfeiture notice in respect of the Stepaside facility.
The Court heard that the latest notice was set to come into force on Wednesday, October 18th.
Counsel said that correspondence over the forfeiture notices followed, and there were invitations to have this aspect of the dispute go to mediation.
Counsel said that despite the extensive correspondence between lawyers for the parties, aimed at resolving this particular dispute, it had not been possible to get the company to give an undertaking not to act on the forfeiture notice.
Counsel said that Gradual Investments was aware of Dr Grant’s intention to seek an injunction.
He said that in its correspondence the company has denied any wrongdoing and had expressed its opposition to any injunction being granted by the court.
After considering the matter Mr Justice Quinn said that while he had heard only from one side involved in the dispute, he was satisfied from the evidence put before the court that Dr Grant has raised a serious question that needs to be tried before the court.
The judge said he was also satisfied that the balance of justice requires the status quo to remain in place.
It is in the interests of Dr Grant’s patients that she and the other doctors based in the premises be allowed to continue to work at the facility until the matter returns before the court, the judge added.
The case was adjourned to a date later this month.
The judge also granted both sides permission to return to court before then, on notice to each other, should the need arise.