Leases - Licensing - Construction - Grant of lease - Effect of lease agreements - Acquiring of right by prescription - Contractual interpretation - Plain and natural meaning  

Facts: The plaintiffs sought various declarations to the effect that the defendant had no proprietary or other rights in relation to certain lands beyond what was conferred to the defendant pursuant to the specific leases. The defendant, too, sought certain declarations against the plaintiffs. The defendant contended that the proposed development would be contrary to its rights under the relevant lease. The defendant claimed that it had acquired by prescription an easement to use the said lands for car parking, which right would be adversely affected by the proposed development of the said lands. The key issue pertained to the interpretation of various leases entered into between the parties. 
Held: Mr. Justice Max Barrett granted some of the declarations to the plaintiffs while refusing to grant the others. The Court refused to grant any declarations to the defendant. The Court held that the meaning that a document conveyed would be a meaning which a reasonable person would convey having all the background knowledge. The Court held that while interpreting the document, factual matrix needed to be considered but not the previous negotiations of the parties, and the words should be given their plain and natural meaning. The Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the landlord was entitled to carry out the proposed development with the defendant having no irrevocable right to use that land for car park. The Court, however, held that the relevant lease provided for an express licence to the defendant for car parking. The Court held that if the plaintiffs carried out the proposed development, it would not interfere with the rights of the defendant so as to cause derogation from grant. 
The Square Management Limited & Ors v Dunnes Stores Dublin Company 
2/3/2017 No. 2015 9118 P [2017] IEHC 146