The Court of Appeal has ruled that the costs of an injunction dispute over possession of a County Cavan property should be decided after the substantive case rather than now.
The court had already ruled in May 2025 that an interlocutory injunction obtained by Sylvia Fox against Martin Reilly and Donna Heslin should remain in place. The underlying proceedings seek vacant possession of the property and orders restraining the defendants from entering it, obstructing Fox’s access, changing locks or causing a nuisance.
In the High Court, Ms Justice Quinn awarded Fox the costs of the injunction application on the High Court scale, with a stay pending appeal. She considered that although the case could have been brought in either the Circuit Court or High Court, Fox might ultimately recover damages of about €130,000, the price she paid for the property.
Reilly and Heslin appealed that costs ruling. They argued that the property value placed the proceedings within Circuit Court jurisdiction and that, if costs were awarded, they should be limited under the statutory differential-costs regime to the lower court scale.
Ms Justice Hyland said Fox’s complete success in resisting the injunction appeal was highly relevant. However, the question of which court scale should apply could not fairly be resolved on the material currently available.
The pleadings were sparse. No statement of claim had yet been served, the damages sought had not been quantified and no rateable valuation of the property was before the Court of Appeal.
The court therefore concluded that the trial judge, who will ultimately know the full nature of Fox’s claim, will be better placed to decide whether she is entitled to costs and on what scale.
The Court of Appeal allowed Reilly and Heslin’s costs appeal, set aside the existing High Court-scale costs order and reserved the costs of both the High Court injunction application and the Court of Appeal proceedings to the judge hearing the substantive case. The underlying injunction itself remains unaffected by this supplemental ruling.