Pat McDonagh, the owner of Supermac’s, and two of his corporations have been mandated by the court to bear the majority of the legal expenses from a planning confrontation with a couple, previously managers of a Supermac’s eatery in Limerick. The judgement was delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons in a lawsuit initiated by ex-Supermac’s franchisees, John and Mary Lyons, who now run their own restaurant, The Hungry Lyons, adjacent to McDonagh’s Funworld bowling alley on Ennis Road.
Their complaint was directed towards McDonagh and two affiliated companies, Supermac’s Ireland Ltd and Funworld (Ireland) Ltd. The Lyons established their dining establishment following the discontinuation of their Supermacs outlet in 2019, which they attribute to the commercial hardships imposed on them by McDonagh. They alleged that McDonagh opted to directly compete against them by setting up a restaurant within the bowling facility, located in the same building as their business which, according to them, contradicted their lease agreement containing a non-compete condition which disallows the leasing or subletting of any portion of the premises for a fast-food eatery or deli.
Their claims followed renovations to carve out a food joint within Funworld, which necessitated the closure of a connecting door. Consequently, the Lyons sought a restraining order from the Circuit Court claiming the modifications were illegitimate. However, the plea was refuted and McDonagh’s entities then filed a retention application to Limerick City and County Council for the implemented alterations. Responding to this, the Lyons approached the High Court with an appeal while the council notified the respondents that the necessary planning permission for the interconnection door was not essential.
The appeal was set to be heard on March 7th of last year when a lawyer representing the Lyons revealed it was being rescinded. He stated however, that they only learnt about the council’s decision of exempting the work a few days prior to the scheduled appeal. The Lyons requested compensation for their legal fees involved in the matter.
In a legal case, the respondents’ counsel resisted the demand for payment of legal costs, stating that they presumed the Lyons were aware of the council’s resolution as they were the opponents. Subsequent concise hearings revolved around a sworn statement by Mr McDonagh, refuting the claim by Lyons’ team that they were oblivious to the council’s decision. He claimed that Lyons’ architect had been informed back in October, criticising the Lyons’ denial as insincere.
Although the case was eventually dropped, the judge decided to make a ruling on the costs. This was despite RTÉ still having potential troubles on the horizon even with its €725m funding plan. The judge opined on Wednesday that Lyons’ commitment to a planning enforcement issue seemed reasonable, with their approach being justified since the respondents were obligated to apply for retention of planning permission.
However, the judge also indicated that Lyons’ reasoning for abandoning their appeal didn’t save them from paying court costs. Due to the fact that the Lyons first pursued then dropped the case, the costs order would reflect this by making the respondents liable for only two-thirds of the costs ordinarily recoverable on taxation. This exclusively pertained to costs incurred until February 29th, the date the grant for retention of planning permission was given.
The proceedings after March 7th, when the case was dropped, were deemed unreasonable by the judge, accusing the respondents of pushing the “date of knowledge” issue on the planning decision too far. The matter turned out to have little relevance to the overall court expenses. In conclusion, the evidence showed the issue was resolved in favour of the Lyons, leading the judge to deem it appropriate for the additional costs from March 7th to be borne by the respondents. He proposed considering restraining the cost order to the corporate respondents, who appear to be the owners and operators of the premises in question, at a later date.