Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused to set aside earlier orders granting interlocutory injunctions against the defendants, finding no basis to disturb the orders or that they had been improperly made. The court also rejected the defendants' application for an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from selling two commercial properties, noting the sale had already occurred and damages would be an adequate remedy. While the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim was not granted outright—since some arguable cause of action could be discerned—the court found the counterclaim fundamentally deficient and ordered that it be properly pleaded within fourteen days, failing which it would be dismissed. The decision emphasises the necessity for clear pleadings and timely action, and the importance of recognising third party interests following completion of a property sale.
interlocutory injunction – counterclaim – motion to dismiss – set aside order – appointment of receiver – property sale – delay – balance of convenience – adequacy of damages – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – Order 19 Rule 28 – Order 21 Rule 9 – commercial property – mortgage enforcement – pleading deficiency
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now