The High Court has granted Peter Savill an interlocutory injunction concerning Ballykilbride Stud in Ballymoney, County Wicklow, pending trial of his action against Laurence Byrne. The order requires Byrne to vacate the dwelling and other parts of the property, remove his animals and belongings, and stay away from and not interfere with the property or Savill’s use of it.
The court noted Savill’s undertaking to pay damages if Byrne later establishes that the injunction caused him loss. The order was not yet perfected: before that could happen, Savill had to satisfy the court on an issue arising from copies of documents exhibited in the case. The judgment does not specify what that issue was.
Savill’s action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages. He argued that Byrne was trespassing and causing a nuisance after the sub-lease between them had been terminated. The lease, dated 5 April 2011, covered agricultural land for four years and nine months at annual rent of €20,000; the first year’s rent was paid in advance.
Savill alleged breaches involving unauthorised subletting and maintenance of the property, and said he terminated the sub-lease by notice sent on 31 December 2011. Byrne disputed the alleged breaches and challenged the termination. He said he had no memory of receiving the notice by post and disputed the signature on the postal receipt, although the judgment records that he received the notice by email. The judge said that dispute, among others, could not be resolved on the injunction application.
The court found that Savill had raised a fair, bona fide question about whether Byrne had been trespassing since 6 January 2012 and whether his alleged behaviour from January to April 2012 amounted to nuisance. The judge stressed that this was a low threshold and did not determine the final outcome. The parties’ affidavit evidence contained substantial factual conflicts, which would require oral evidence and cross-examination at trial.
In granting interim relief, the court concluded that damages would not adequately compensate Savill if he ultimately proved his right to possession, and that the balance of convenience favoured the injunction. Byrne had said he was willing to give up possession while seeking damages in a counterclaim. The court made no final ruling on the validity of the termination, the alleged breaches, trespass or nuisance; those questions remain for the substantive proceedings.