The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Declan Rogers and Rogers Recycling Limited against orders concerning industrial units on Ossory Road, Dublin 3. The High Court had permanently restrained them from interfering with the occupiers or demanding money from them, and ordered them to pay €150,000 in trespass damages and the respondent’s costs on a legal practitioner and own client basis. Those orders remain in place.
The appeal was heard by Allen, Meenan and Hyland JJ. Allen J. delivered the ex tempore judgment on 7 February 2025, with Meenan and Hyland JJ. agreeing. Tom Harty was named as a defendant in the High Court proceedings, but the summons was never served on him.
The units were formerly owned by Rogers and later sold by mortgagee Everyday Finance DAC to Ossory Road Enterprise Park Limited (OREP). Rogers challenged OREP’s title and alleged that the sale involved a conspiracy to exclude an earlier bidder, Robert Healy, who had bid €1.413 million at an April 2021 auction. OREP later bought the properties for €1.251 million. The High Court rejected the conspiracy allegation, finding no credible supporting evidence. There was no appeal against that finding or the finding that OREP held the freehold title.
Rogers Recycling claimed a 21-year lease over Unit 1, said to run from 1 July 2012, and relied on a purported AIB consent letter dated 10 March 2014. The High Court found the letter was fabricated and that the purported lease did not bind OREP. The appeal did not challenge the factual findings underlying that conclusion or the finding that the lease did not bind OREP. The Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the trial judge should have avoided a finding of fraud and decided the lease issue on timing alone.
The Court of Appeal also rejected challenges concerning the alleged exclusion of Healy from later sale discussions, the admission of evidence about the purported consent letter, and the High Court’s costs order. It said the appeal did not engage with the trial judge’s unchallenged finding that there was no evidence of a conspiracy. On costs, the court noted that the higher basis had been used to mark the court’s displeasure at the defence and counterclaim being grounded on false evidence and fabricated documents.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The judgment records no variation of the High Court’s orders.