The High Court ordered David Egar to pay the Alfred Beit Foundation’s costs of its successful application for an interlocutory injunction over land. The costs are to be adjudicated upon if the parties cannot agree, and the court declined to stay execution of the order pending trial.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice David Keane on 19 February 2021, dealt with the form of the injunction order and the costs of the application. The injunctions themselves had been granted in a judgment on 29 January 2021, reported as [2021] IEHC 65.
The court approved the Foundation’s proposed order. It restrains Mr Egar and people acting with his authority, or served with or notified of the order, from trespassing on the lands, causing or encouraging others to trespass, entering or occupying the lands, slandering the Foundation’s title, or interfering with its use of the lands and its relations with others about that use. It also requires him to leave the lands and remove his property, including animals, gate locks and electric fences. The order takes effect from the seventh day after service and continues pending trial.
On costs, the judge said the Foundation had succeeded and Mr Egar had failed on both issues considered at the injunction hearing. Those issues were whether Mr Egar had an arguable right to occupy the Foundation’s lands and, if so, whether the Foundation had a strong case and the balance of convenience favoured an injunction pending trial.
The judge concluded that costs could be decided fairly at this stage. He said Mr Egar had put forward no evidence of a defence beyond mere assertion, and that the balance-of-convenience issue would not be revisited at trial. The costs order was made in the Foundation’s favour, with the amount to be assessed if there is no agreement.
The judge considered whether to stay enforcement pending trial, noting Mr Egar’s status as a litigant in person and his unexplained failure to meet the deadline for written submissions. He refused a stay, saying it would not be just given his finding that no meaningful issue for trial had been raised beyond assertion.