The High Court has refused an application by Fintan Monaghan, Treasa Keegan and Save Castletown Committee Company Limited to strike out proceedings brought by four property companies over Gay’s Avenue in Castletown, County Kildare. The underlying claims remain to be decided at trial.
In a judgment delivered on 15 September 2025, Ms Justice Emily Farrell held that the defendants had not shown that the plaintiffs’ claims had no reasonable prospect of success, were bound to fail or amounted to an abuse of process. She rejected the argument that the proceedings were strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), and refused the requested strike-out under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that there is no public right of way over their lands, as well as orders concerning entry onto the property and damages for alleged trespass, slander of title and interference with property rights. The dispute centres on green metal gates erected across Gay’s Avenue, a route leading to Castletown House. The court noted that Kildare County Council had granted permission to retain a temporary car park, without a macadam surface, while refusing permission for road widening, gates and other elements of a proposed development.
The defendants argued that they did not rely on a public right of way in separate proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and that the plaintiffs’ proceedings were unnecessary and intended to impede that case. Their solicitors had said in a letter that their clients did not intend to oppose a negative declaration, but the judge found this was not consent to the declaration and was not a clear admission that no public right of way existed. She also noted evidence that earlier statements asserting such a right remained on the committee company’s website.
The plaintiffs alleged that defendants or people they represented had trespassed on the lands, damaged gates and a fence, and encouraged unlawful access. The judge did not resolve those disputed allegations. She said that if the plaintiffs established their asserted facts at trial, it was not clear that the relief sought could provide no benefit.
The judge also rejected the defendants’ arguments based on the absence of a pre-action letter and alleged interference with access to the courts. She said the proceedings were issued for bona fide reasons on the evidence before her, while stressing that whether the plaintiffs will obtain any of the relief sought is a matter for trial. The proceedings were listed before her for 13 October 2025 for any consequential orders.