The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals arising from a dispute over a garage in Portarlington, upholding a contempt finding against Noel Martin Snr. and costs orders against the defendants.
The dispute began after Alan O’Neill and June Finnegan, who had paid for a garage with their home, discovered that the land beneath it had not been transferred to them. Drumgoan Developments Ltd was later registered as the owner. O’Neill’s evidence was that men damaged the garage with power tools and a digger on 21 February 2024, while Martin Snr. directed them. Drumgoan disputed that a JCB was used, but the Court of Appeal noted other evidence about the visit and damage that had not been contradicted.
On 17 April 2024, the High Court ordered the defendants and people acting with them not to communicate directly with the plaintiffs. On 24 April, their counsel gave undertakings including not to enter the property or interfere with the plaintiffs’ use of it. Martin Snr. sent further WhatsApp messages that evening. He later accepted that he had breached the order, and the High Court found that he had also breached the undertakings.
The High Court adjourned the question of sanction and later ordered Martin Snr. to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on a solicitor-own-client basis. It also ordered Drumgoan and Martin Snr. jointly and severally to pay costs of the contempt motions, and all three defendants jointly and severally to pay costs of the applications for interlocutory relief.
Martin Snr. appealed the procedure, contempt finding and sanction. Drumgoan and Martin Snr. separately challenged costs relating to the contempt motions, while all three defendants appealed the costs of the interlocutory applications.
The Court of Appeal rejected the challenges. It held that the unusual service of a penal-endorsed order in the witness box had been accepted at the time, and that the facts establishing the breaches were not genuinely disputed. It also found no basis to overturn the costs orders, including the order involving Darren Martin, against whom there had been no contempt finding. The court said the interlocutory relief had been sought against all defendants.
The court’s judgment concerned the contempt and costs appeals. It did not determine the underlying property claim or assess damages. The Court of Appeal’s preliminary view was that the plaintiffs should receive the costs of all three appeals; any party seeking a different order was required to notify the court by 14 August 2025.