The High Court has reserved the costs of a property company’s application for a mandatory injunction until the trial of its action over water damage and the condition of a former hotel in Ballybunnion. The court did not decide whether the requested injunction should have been granted: the building had been sold, so an order against the defendants could no longer have practical effect.
Adelina Limited owns a ground-floor unit in the building, formerly the Golf Hotel. It alleged that water entering through the roof damaged its unit and affected its ability to rent it. The defendants disputed the reason the tenant left. The company later relied on an expert report raising concerns about structural safety. The defendants’ engineering consultants agreed that the building was in poor condition and required work, but disagreed that structural collapse was imminent.
The injunction application was due to be heard on 10 February 2022. The plaintiff was told the previous evening that the sale had closed. The judge rejected the defendants’ submission that the plaintiff had simply withdrawn and that they had therefore wholly succeeded. The sale, which made the application moot, was within the defendants’ control, but had been flagged in advance. The judge said neither side’s position on costs could be decided justly without resolving the disputed expert evidence, which would be better addressed at trial. The costs of the injunction motion were reserved to that trial.
The judgment also considered a second motion seeking replies to particulars, inspection and information about who controlled the building or received income from it. The judge ordered the defendants to provide particulars identifying any party that had instructed either defendant about matters in the case; particulars of the factual basis for the pleaded insolvency; and details of the control exercised over the building and whether another party directed it. The court declined to order disclosure of the requested information outside the discovery process.
The parties had narrowed the second motion before the hearing. The plaintiff obtained some of the relief it continued to seek and failed on other requests. The judge was inclined to make the costs of that motion “costs in the cause”—to be dealt with as part of the action—but invited further submissions if either side sought a different order.
The judgment does not determine the underlying claims, the defendants’ liability for repairs or damage, or whether the works carried out were adequate. Those issues remain for the substantive action.