The Supreme Court has agreed to hear another appeal over ownership of the Harry Clarke stained glass windows in Bewleys Cafe in Grafton Street, Dublin.
It follows a 2-1 decision of the Court of Appeal last July that all six of the windows belong to the landlord of the premises, developer Johnny Ronan's RGRE Grafton Ltd.
A dissenting judgment found that two of the windows were owned by Bewley's and the other four were "tenant's fixtures".
That decision differed from a 2023 High Court decision that only four of the windows belonged to RGRE while the other two were the property of the tenant, Bewley’s Cafe Grafton Street (BCGS) Ltd and its subsidiary Bewley’s Ltd.
The six windows are said to be worth €1 million.
RGRE had brought the appeal.
The Bewley's firms then asked the Supreme Court to hear another appeal on grounds that the case gave rise to matters of general public importance.
They also referred to the absence of “established Irish legal principles” regarding the nature of the ownership of affixed decorative or artistic chattels as a tenant’s or landlord’s fixture.
RGRE opposed a further appeal, disputing that it raised matters of general public importance. It argued this was a private law matter with no public interest aspect and said that the windows are not designated as “national treasure(s).”
In a determination on Thursday, a three-judge Supreme Court panel granted a further appeal.
The panel said it appeared to the court that the issues identified by Bewley's satisfy the constitutional criteria for the grant of leave.
It said the fact that the Court of Appeal differed from the High Court, and that the appeal court itself was "sharply divided as to the proper resolution of the issues" were "indicators of the complexity" of the matter.
While some of that complexity arises from the evidential uncertainties highlighted in the judgments, it appeared to the panel that the intended appeal also raises significant and complex issues of law relating to fixtures.
These issues included the proper treatment of items which are both functional and decorative in nature which are said to have been annexed to, and to form part of, the landlord’s premises and the circumstances (if any) in which the tenant is entitled to de-annex and remove such items, it said.
While the items at issue here are perhaps unique, the issues involved are of wider significance and, in the opinion of the panel, the intended appeal raises issues of general public importance.
Given the significant artistic and commercial value of the works, it is in the interests of justice that the issue of their ownership should be finally determined by the Supreme Court.
