The High Court ruled that Noel Sheridan and Peter Quinn, trading as Sheridan Quinn, were entitled to a fresh order requiring John Gaynor to give them possession of land in County Westmeath so it could be sold to satisfy a judgment debt. The court deferred setting a deadline until it heard from the parties about the land’s current use and practical arrangements for handing it over.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 8 November 2012, concerned a motion issued in February that year. The plaintiffs had also sought attachment and committal for Mr Gaynor’s failure to comply with a 2010 possession order. The judge declined to consider that request because the order had not been served in time for him to comply before its deadline. The application proceeded only as a request for a fresh possession order.
The dispute arose from unpaid legal costs. A 2003 High Court judgment awarded the plaintiffs €77,016.57 and costs. In 2004, an order declared €63,486.90 well charged on Mr Gaynor’s interest in several lands and provided for their sale if the debt was not paid. A 2007 order narrowed the sale order to his interest in Folio 2538, County Westmeath.
Mr Gaynor had argued that his sister, Cecilia Gaynor, had an interest in that land. In 2009, the High Court decided she did not. His appeal was struck out by the Supreme Court in 2010. The High Court then ordered him to give possession by 17 September 2010, but he did not do so.
The plaintiffs said the €63,486.90 debt, with interest, remained outstanding. Mr Gaynor disputed the plaintiffs’ account that a separate €50,000 payment in bankruptcy proceedings had been accepted without prejudice to the land proceedings. The judge noted that he did not claim the payment settled the debt secured against the land. The bankruptcy proceedings were struck out after the payment.
The judge concluded that the secured amount and interest remained due. Although the conditions for sale had not yet been settled, she found it was in the interests of justice to order possession before the plaintiffs incurred that expense, given the history of the case and the need to proceed with the court-ordered sale.
The court did not specify a new delivery date in this judgment. It said it would hear the parties about the land’s current use and any practical arrangements before fixing a date within the following three to four weeks.