The High Court has refused to require the owners of an adjoining property to unlock a gate giving access to the rear of three units while a wider dispute over access, parking and alleged rights of way awaits trial.
Olive Green IMS Holdings Limited bought a property containing 11 residential and commercial units from a receiver at auction in November 2024 for €750,000. Anthony Carter had previously owned both that property and neighbouring land, known in the proceedings as Block 1, before transferring Block 1 to his wife Elizabeth Carter in 2014.
Olive Green claims its property has longstanding access and other rights over Block 1. The Carters dispute that, maintaining that historic use occurred by permission and that Elizabeth Carter is entitled to protect her registered property rights.
The company sought interlocutory orders preserving access, circulation and parking while the case proceeds. Following undertakings from the defendants, most issues were resolved pending trial. The sole remaining dispute concerned a locked gate on Block 1 controlling access to an area behind three of Olive Green’s units.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy held that compelling access through the gate would amount to mandatory relief altering the existing position and therefore required Olive Green to show a strong case likely to succeed at trial.
The judge found that threshold had not been met. The claimed rights had not been adequately defined in the existing pleadings, while first-hand evidence indicated the gate had generally been locked over the years and that tenants who received keys did so through individual arrangements rather than as of right.
The court was also unconvinced by Olive Green’s reliance on historic planning permissions as establishing continuing property rights over Block 1. Planning permission and private property rights were distinct issues requiring fuller consideration at trial.
The three units affected by the gate were vacant, while the defendants’ undertakings preserved access across Block 1 to the property generally. The court also found that any proven rental loss could be compensated through damages.
The application was dismissed in light of those undertakings, with formal final orders to be addressed on April 29, 2026.