Judgment: 2025-09-12 · Court archive

Court of Appeal refuses stay allowing Naas trespass injunction to take effect

Court of Appeal · [2025] IECA 187

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Wendy Doyle (Plaintiff)
  • Eugenie Houston (Defendant)
What

Court of Appeal refuses stay allowing Naas trespass injunction to take effect

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 258 Morell Dale
  • High Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 24 July 2024

    The County Sheriff took possession of the Naas property on 24 July 2024 and placed it in the possession of Doyle’s agent. The judgment records that Houston re-entered later the same day and remained there. Doyle then sought an injunction restraining continuing trespass and interference with the sale.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Hyland J held that those arguments did not amount to bona fide or arguable grounds justifying a stay. The judge also rejected Houston’s reliance on maintaining the status quo, finding that the relevant position was the one after lawful possession had been obtained and before Houston’s re-entry.

The Court of Appeal has refused to continue a stay on an injunction restraining Eugenie Houston from occupying 258 Morell Dale, Naas, Co Kildare.

The ruling means the High Court injunction obtained by Wendy Doyle is now in force pending Houston’s substantive appeal, which was listed for 13 November 2025.

The dispute follows years of litigation between the parties. In March 2019, the High Court declared monies secured by four judgment mortgages over the property to be well charged and ordered a sale if the debts were not paid. Appeals against that outcome ultimately failed.

In November 2022, the High Court ordered Houston to surrender vacant possession, subject to a six-month stay. That order was also upheld on appeal.

The County Sheriff took possession of the Naas property on 24 July 2024 and placed it in the possession of Doyle’s agent. The judgment records that Houston re-entered later the same day and remained there. Doyle then sought an injunction restraining continuing trespass and interference with the sale.

Houston argued that the injunction should remain stayed while she appealed, raising points about an undertaking in damages and an application she had made to Tailte Éireann concerning judgment mortgages.

Hyland J held that those arguments did not amount to bona fide or arguable grounds justifying a stay. The judge also rejected Houston’s reliance on maintaining the status quo, finding that the relevant position was the one after lawful possession had been obtained and before Houston’s re-entry.

The court stressed that this was not an appeal against the original possession order. That litigation had already concluded. The present appeal concerned an injunction restraining a later trespass.

The stay was therefore refused in relation to the trespass injunction. A stay was granted only on the High Court costs order pending the appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review