Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
SINCE THE BEGINNING of the legal drama between Dublin nightspot Yamamori Izakaya and the Hoxton Hotel, noise has been at the heart of the case.
The recently opened Hoxton, which sought an injunction against the George’s Street nightclub in the High Court last month, has claimed late-night music from Yamamori Izakaya has forced it to close 31 rooms and to incur up to €300,000 in losses.
But supporters of the venue – who view the case as a threat to Dublin nightlife – have responded loudly themselves, responding negatively on social media and holding a huge demonstration-cum-rave in the street outside the hotel in protest.
For the first time, it’s possible to see how noise complaints brought the dispute to the High Court.
The Journal has obtained and reviewed legal filings which show in detail how the dispute began, including weeks of complaints, emails and failed negotiations that preceded litigation.
The case was first reported in the media last month, after Trinity Hospitality Limited, the company that owns the building used by The Hoxton, sought an injunction against Yamamori Izakaya.
The Hoxton Hotel, formerly the Central Hotel on Exchequer Street, opened in November after refurbishment works and adjoins Yamamori Izakaya, a restaurant and bar where live music is played five nights a week.
There was an initial backlash against the hotel, with the news accompanied by outrage from many people who shared their opinions of the injunction request in comments on the hotel’s Instagram account,
A number of comments referred to Dublin’s already dwindling late night dance spaces.
However, Trinity Hospitality issued an initial statement saying that it was “seeking to engage constructively” with Yamamori Izakaya to carry out “joint acoustic testing” in both the restaurant and the hotel to come to a solution.
“Unfortunately, that testing has not yet been facilitated by Yamamori Izakaya, preventing meaningful technical discussions on a solution,” the company said at the time.
Yamamori later said it was “hard to accept the company’s claim that it had no choice”, saying in a statement of its own that it had sought meetings between experts from both sides in the months beforehand.
The hotel’s position was maintained in an affidavit sworn by the hotel’s general manager, seen by The Journal, which alleged that a “persistent low-frequency bass noise, amplified music, and structure-borne sound” was coming into the hotel late at night and disturbing guests at the “most commercially critical time of year”.
Central to the complaint was the fact that Yamamori Izakaya was using its ground floor as a nightclub, rather than a basement level that had previously been used.
“Prior to the opening of the hotel, most if not all music events at the [nightclub] were, to the best of my knowledge, confined to the basement,” the affidavit reads.
“At this juncture, the hotel does not know when the defendant commenced using the ground floor as a music venue.”
The hotel claimed in its affidavit that it carried out a number of acoustic reviews of the noise impact from the nightclub, following complaints from guests and the closure of 31 rooms.
“[An engineer] concluded that the noise intrusion is dominated by low-frequency bass sound, which is particularly intrusive, difficult to mitigate, and not present in the absence of music,” the hotel said.
The affidavit extensively details the email correspondence between both sides that preceded the legal action.
In an initial email on 18 November, the general manager of the Hoxton Hotel Stephan Ernest wrote to Graham Ryan, a director of Yamamori Izakaya to introduce an acoustic consultant known as DP.
It read: “As promised last week, just making intros between you and [DP]. [DP] has helped us previously with acoustics testing and I had hoped for him to meet with your sound team next week to do some further testing?”
“The proposed testing for next week is really only to get a view on what is required from both sides to get to reasonable noise levels,” it continued later.
“Goal is for us both to be able to run successful businesses looking after our guests. I know you have spoken to your team previously on noise level, which is really much appreciated!
“I have spoken with [DP] earlier today and he would be available on Tuesday from 12pm next week if suitable? Testing should take about 4 hours. Would be delighted to include you on this also to see what the impact would be in the hotel if sounds are kept at current levels. After the testing, we could meet up to chat results from it and chat next steps?”
Ryan is said to have responded almost three weeks later on 8 December 2025, when he confirmed the restaurant had ordered “tamper-proof limiting devices” to reduce noise.
Ernest then said he replied to Ryan on 9 December 2025 to acknowledge his email, and to ask if testing could be arranged with respective advisers for each side.
“As Mr Ryan did not confirm a time for joint testing, I continued to communicate with him via email,” the affidavit reads.
Ernest then says he followed up on the evening of 10 December 2025.
The email reads: “As I have not yet received a response, I am just contacting you again on the below. [DP] is on site tomorrow and is available to do testing. I want to stress the importance on getting this resolved for both as soon as possible.”
Ryan responded the following morning, 11 December 2025, to explain the delay in arranging a test and to say he’d been in touch with their own acoustic expert, known as DK.
The email read: “I’ve been bogged down with some massive projects this week that has absorbed all my time and attention, that with the Christmas season has kept me away from my laptop.
“I sympathise that you have issues, I have asked DK for a call later this afternoon, he is also very busy. I’ll get back to you then later this evening and we can go from there.”
Ernest then responded via email the following evening, 12 December 2025 to say he had not received a follow-up.
The email said: “I appreciate this is a busy period for all, but I have not received correspondence from you yesterday on availability for testing. Could you urgently get in touch with me this afternoon ahead of the weekend to mitigate issues short term please?”
He also outlined that the hotel had to deal with more noise complaints from guests and asked for a response by the following Monday, 15 December, by the latest.
“We really need to see what we can do to resolve this for both parties,” the email continued.
“If I haven’t received a response, I see no other option but to escalate this to protect the business and the team working here.”
Ryan responded a number of minutes later, saying: “Apologies for the late reply, very busy week indeed and very sorry to hear about your complaints.
“We will be installing two limiting devices in two separate zones on Wednesday 17 December, 2025 with DK and Yamamori Izakaya’s sound engineer for Izakaya ground floor.
“Please confirm that our expert can contact your expert directly and confirm that your expert will provide all information that he requires to allow us to decide the next steps.”
Ernest then asked Ryan whether the acoustic experts from both sides could liaise about a joint inspection.
The nightclub’s expert DK wrote an email to the hotel’s expert DP on 15 December 2025 outlining a number of proposed measures.
They included the hotel providing the noise levels measured in March 2023 when the two sides first engaged, information about a bespoke floor system purchased by the hotel, details of pre-fit out acoustic tests and other acoustic reports and sound insulation tests.
Both experts agreed to meet two days later, but the affidavit claims that “no testing took place” – and then that the meeting didn’t happen despite being agreed.
On the morning of 17 December 2025, the day of the proposed meeting, the nightclub’s expert DK wrote to general hotel manager Ernest to say that Yamamori Izakaya was “more than happy to work with you to get to the bottom of the matter”.
It read: “We respectfully request the documents I have asked for so that I can study them before we go to site. In cases like this, it is commonplace for data to be shared so we can proceed with an open, transparent, collaborative approach. We understand that low frequency is the issue in the bedrooms.”
DK requested the hotel’s expert DP bring measurements to a meeting between the pair that evening, because “asking us to measure without understanding what we are measuring leaves us in the dark, to be honest”.
Ernest then says in his affidavit that “no meeting took place”.
He emailed Ryan that afternoon asking why testing could not take place that day.
The email read: “Could I ask why it is not possible to do the testing today, please? Both acousticians are on site today. The situation we find ourselves in currently cannot continue, as it is causing materialistic damage to the company.”
Ernest says that the matter was then “put on hold over the Christmas period” before he sent a follow-up email on 22 January, 2026 seeking a meeting between both sides with legal representatives.
It read: “Over the past few weeks, we have been carrying out further analysis of the acoustic issues and taking specialist advice. Our clear preference is to resolve this matter collaboratively and pragmatically.
“However, as approximately 30 hotel rooms across the first to third floors remain out of operation due to noise transmission from Yamamori Izakaya, it is important that we move towards a resolution as quickly as possible.”
Ernest said he received no response, and followed up four days later, 26 January 2026 to request the meeting with legal representatives again.
Ryan then responded two days later on 28 January 2026 to agree to a meeting subject to receiving certain documents.
He said: “We can meet but subject to getting the requested documentation. If you get it to us in the next few days, we can meet shortly after that indeed.
“I have notified my landlords about your request, and they are of the same position, first we must get the information. Get that over to me ASAP and we can work towards pencilling something in.”
The following morning, 29 January 2026, the hotel notified the nightclub by email of its intention to initiate legal proceedings.
Ernest’s final email read: “I appreciate your request, but the advice of our legal team and our acoustic consultant is that the information requested is of no relevance to the issues that are impacting the Hoxton.
“Attached is a copy of our expert’s report for your consideration. It clearly demonstrates that there is a serious issue arising from the operation of Yamamori Izakaya. Separately, our solicitor will be sending you a letter later today.”
The case then became public on 12 February when the Irish Times reported that the hotel had sought a High Court injunction against Yamamori Izakaya over noise levels.
Subsequent media reports then followed up on the backlash that the hotel received, with a public demonstration in support of the nightclub taking place on 17 February.
The case is due before the High Court again tomorrow.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say