The High Court has refused Jerry Beades’s application for interlocutory relief concerning properties on Richmond Avenue, Dublin 3, acquired by Dublin City Council (DCC) through a compulsory purchase process. Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said the court was not making a final determination of the legal or factual issues in the proceedings.
Beades sought 14 orders, including orders to stop steps related to the properties’ entry on the Derelict Sites Register and the compulsory purchase order (CPO), to make DCC leave the site, and to allow him and Jerry Beades Concrete Ltd access to goods and equipment. He also sought access to a basement area, removal of locks and chains, and an order to prevent alleged trespass on land in front of number 31 Richmond Avenue.
The properties covered by this application were 21 Richmond Avenue, 27–29 Richmond Avenue and land behind 21–29 Richmond Avenue. The judgment records that DCC became their registered owner on 20 May 2021 under a vesting order. The CPO process had been approved by An Bord Pleanála in January 2021. Beades had objected during that process, raising issues including notice service, maps, the Derelict Sites Register and whether the site was derelict. He did not bring a judicial review challenge to the Board’s decision or the vesting order.
DCC opposed the application, arguing that Beades was seeking to revisit issues raised in the CPO process through interlocutory proceedings, and that mandatory orders would improperly reverse the effect of decisions and instruments that had not been challenged. Beades argued that notice and proof-of-service issues denied him fair procedures, and that DCC’s entry to the property was unlawful. The judgment records both sides’ submissions; the court made no final ruling on the underlying legal disputes.
The judge said most of the requested orders were mandatory in substance and required Beades to show a strong case likely to succeed at trial. She concluded that he had not met the applicable threshold for the relief sought. DCC was the registered owner and in possession, and the court found no basis at this stage to order it to give up possession or permit Beades to enter. On access to goods and materials, the judge noted DCC’s stated willingness to arrange collection and said sensible arrangements could be reached with Beades’s cooperation. She made no determination about any disposal of those items.
The court also refused an order concerning alleged trespass on land outside the acquired area, finding insufficient evidence of a trespass or continuing trespass requiring interim relief. The judge said damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the existing position. She refused all relief sought. Her provisional view was that DCC was entitled to its costs, with the matter listed for mention on 13 June 2023 for submissions on costs and any other matter arising from the judgment.