The High Court has granted an injunction requiring a woman to leave a County Kildare property after finding that she re-entered it following the Sheriff’s execution of an order giving possession to the plaintiff.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2025, Mr Justice Kennedy said the plaintiff was lawfully in possession after the Sheriff executed a writ on 24 July 2024. The defendant later returned to the property and remained there. The judge found that her occupation was a continuing trespass and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought.
The property had been the defendant’s home. The dispute arose from unpaid legal costs awarded against her in earlier proceedings. The plaintiff registered four judgment mortgages against the property. A 2019 well charging order, upheld on appeal, allowed the property to be sold in default of payment. In November 2022, the High Court ordered the defendant to give vacant possession, subject to a six-month stay. The Court of Appeal upheld that order and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
After the defendant did not leave, the Sheriff took possession under a writ of fieri facias and delivered it to the plaintiff’s representatives. The judge said the defendant did not dispute that the orders had been made, that the Sheriff had executed the writ, or that she had re-entered. She argued that the seizure and earlier orders were invalid, that the plaintiff lacked standing after merging her legal practice with another firm, and that her constitutional, EU and human rights had been breached.
The judge rejected those arguments, finding that they did not raise a fair issue for trial and amounted to attempts to reopen matters determined in earlier proceedings. He also refused the defendant’s requests for an adjournment, further evidence, oral evidence and cross-examination. He said no material factual dispute requiring cross-examination had been identified, and the request had not been made through the required procedure. He declined to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding that no necessary or coherent basis for a reference had been shown.
The court said the plaintiff’s property rights and the balance of justice supported the injunction. It granted the plaintiff immediate entitlement to possession, subject to any appeal, and awarded her the costs of the proceedings, with assessment if the parties could not agree. The order was stayed until 18 July 2025, when the appeal was listed for directions. The Court of Appeal would decide whether any further stay should apply.