The High Court has granted Phoenix Construction Consulting Limited interim injunctive relief in a dispute over four apartments at 11A North Frederick Street, Dublin 1, while giving unidentified occupants 28 days to enter appearances and explain their basis for living there.
In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2022, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts refused the company’s application for summary judgment against the occupants. She extended their time to enter appearances by 28 days, accepting an email to the court as a genuine request for more time. If an occupant does not file an appearance within that period, the company may enter judgment against that person without a further court order, for the relief sought in its statement of claim.
The company is registered as full owner of the property, which includes a ground-floor commercial unit and four apartments. It has possession of the commercial unit but says it cannot access the apartments. The court’s orders in this case concern the residential part; no relief was sought over the commercial unit.
The injunction against the unidentified occupants is limited, for now, to preventing interference with the company’s possession of the common areas. The occupants were directed to provide the company with full details of their occupation within four weeks. The judge deferred a decision on further relief against them until those details are provided, noting that any existing rights or tenancies must be addressed on their terms. The matter was listed for mention on 17 January 2023.
The court also restrained Gerry Ward from trespassing on or interfering with the company’s possession of the property pending trial. Ward, who does not live there, disputes the company’s title and alleges that a promissory note discharged his mortgage debt. The judge found he had not raised a fair issue on ownership or repayment that would prevent interim relief. She said a prior High Court decision had confirmed the receiver’s appointment over the property, and that the validity of the note was a matter between Ward and the bank in separate proceedings. These were interim findings, not a final trial determination of the claims.
Ward was ordered to provide an affidavit identifying rents paid to him by people living at the property from 2 June 2020 to the judgment date, including amounts, payment dates and payer identities. The court had not set the time for compliance and said it would hear him on that period.
The judge refused Ward’s application to strike out the company’s claim and related allegations in an affidavit, finding the allegations relevant to the pleaded case. She also ordered discovery of specified documents from the company, with some requested categories narrowed or refused. The court reserved the form of the orders, further directions and costs for the January mention.