The High Court discharged an interim injunction against Myles Freney and Paul Freney in a family dispute over claims connected to Lauro Enterprises Limited and its subsidiaries. The order had temporarily restrained the defendants from threatening or intimidating Brian Freney and Gerard Freney, contacting them, or causing them emotional suffering concerning their interests in the companies’ assets.
Ms Justice Laffoy gave her reasons on 22 October 2008. The order had been made ex parte on 1 July, on the basis of an undertaking by the plaintiffs to pay damages if required. The defendants later applied to have it discharged. After hearing those applications on 31 July, the judge ended the interim order against both defendants. The plaintiffs’ separate application for an interlocutory injunction remained adjourned; the judgment did not determine that application or the underlying claims for damages and other relief.
The dispute followed a settlement of earlier proceedings in April 2008. In that settlement, the defendants, who had been plaintiffs in the earlier case, confirmed they would not assert claims or interests in assets of Lauro Enterprises Limited or its subsidiaries. The earlier claim was dismissed by consent on 22 April.
The plaintiffs’ evidence supporting interim relief included letters from their father, Myles, asking them to provide a business asset or money, and text messages sent from anonymous or unidentified senders urging them to reach an arrangement with him. They said they believed the messages were genuine threats and reported them to gardaí. Brian also alleged that his brother Paul pushed him and acted aggressively during an encounter at Dundrum Shopping Centre on 25 June.
Both defendants denied arranging or knowing about the messages. Paul disputed the plaintiffs’ account of the shopping-centre encounter, describing it as a confrontation in which he felt threatened. The judge said the affidavit evidence conflicted on whether Myles knew about the messages and on what happened at Dundrum. She made no finding resolving those disputes. The court also could not infer the defendants’ motivation from a separate March incident involving an employee’s young son.
The judge rejected the defendants’ arguments that the interim order should be set aside for inadequate disclosure, that the relief improperly sought to restrain criminal conduct, or that the application rested only on suspicion. She said there had been no breach of the plaintiffs’ duty of full and frank disclosure, the pleaded basis for relief concerned alleged civil wrongs, and the first plaintiff’s affidavit provided sufficient evidence to support the original interim application.
The order was discharged on the court’s discretionary assessment that evidence put forward by the defendants made it reasonable to conclude that continuing the order was unnecessary to protect the plaintiffs from further threats, intimidation or risks to their safety. This was a decision about the temporary ex parte order, not a final determination of the parties’ disputed allegations.