The High Court has refused an application by Mary Munnelly to stop Kevin Cooke and Eamonn Cooke using a shared entrance to access Castlekeely Manor, where they plan to house Ukrainian refugees. The decision was an interlocutory ruling on an application for an injunction, not a final determination of the underlying claims in nuisance and breach of contract.
The dispute concerns a right of way over part of a joint entrance serving Castlekeely Manor and a neighbouring property where Munnelly lives with her mother. Her mother granted the Cookes a right of way over her portion of the entrance in 2010. The deed described it as being “for all purposes”. Munnelly said the arrangement was intended to facilitate ordinary domestic and agricultural use.
The Cookes proposed renting the five-bedroom house for accommodation for about 29 or 30 Ukrainian refugees. Munnelly said she would not object to eight to 12 residents, but argued that a larger number could bring substantially more traffic, disturb the family’s use of its property and breach the 2010 agreement. She also raised planning, fire-safety and septic-tank concerns, and said vehicles carrying equipment had damaged the shared entrance.
Cooke’s affidavit said the property had been vacant since October 2022 after tenants left. He said discussions were under way with Nethergate Ventures about renting it, after an earlier approach to the Ukrainian Accommodation Procurement Team and the Irish Red Cross did not lead to an agreement. He said works costing €56,000 had adapted the house to accommodate seven Ukrainian families in seven bedrooms. The defendants disputed that the arrangement would be a commercial venture or a “migrant transit hub”.
Justice Cregan said the injunction application was, in substance, a “quia timet” application seeking protection against anticipated harm. He found that Munnelly had provided no evidence of the likely traffic levels or that they would probably amount to an actionable nuisance. The court also said planning and regulatory matters should be raised with the relevant authorities, rather than addressed through this injunction application.
The judge noted that trucks had caused potholes during works, but said the defendants had filled them promptly and that the right of way had not been interfered with. No increased traffic from the proposed occupancy had yet occurred. The court found no serious issue to be tried on the evidence at that stage and said that, even if there were one, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants. It refused the injunction. The underlying claims were not finally decided.