Key Contacts: Elaine Whelan – Senior Associate
RGRE Grafton Limited v Bewley’s Café Grafton Street Limited and Bewley’s Limited.
On Wednesday 5 February 2025, the Supreme Court granted leave for a further appeal over the ownership of the Harry Clarke stained glass windows (the “Windows”) in Bewley’s Café, Grafton Street, Dublin. This follows the judgment of the Court of Appeal (the “COA”) last July which held that all six of the Windows belonged to RGRE Grafton Limited (the “Landlord”) (Article on the COA decision and dissenting judgment, available here).
Bewley’s Café Grafton Street Limited (the “Applicant”) contended that the case gives rise to matters of general public importance. The Applicant noted the absence of “established Irish legal principles” regarding the nature of ownership of affixed decorative or artistic chattels, principles which would be of significant importance in other areas of law such as taxation and rating. The applicant pointed to the long and detailed judgments arising out of the proceedings thus far to demonstrate the complexity of the issue, as well as the dissenting judgment from the COA which demonstrated that the issue at hand has diverging views. It was argued that the complexity of the issue rendered a further appeal to be in the interests of justice.
The Landlord opposed a further appeal, arguing that the case isn’t of general public importance but rather a private law matter with no public interest aspect, relying on the fact that the Windows are not designated as “national treasure(s)”. The Landlord submitted that a further appeal was an attempt by the Applicant to have their appeal reheard as a result of their dissatisfaction with the outcome in the COA, and therefore it is not in the interests of justice.
The three-judge Supreme Court panel (the “Panel”) held in their determination that the issues identified by the Applicant satisfied the constitutional criteria for grant of leave to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court. Among the considerations taken into account by the Panel was the fact the COA differed from the High Court, and that the COA itself was divided in their judgments. While the Panel recognised that the items at issue are unique, the wider significance of the issues involved raised issues of general public importance. The Panel was of the view that the interests of justice weighed in favour of permitting the further appeal and a final determination on the ownership of the Windows given their significant value, both artistically and commercially. Therefore, the applicants were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
This article was written with the assistance of trainee, Elliot Allen.
