The High Court has refused an application to freeze the assets of a company involved in a dispute over a property in Kilkenny, finding that the evidence did not establish an anticipated disposal of assets to prevent enforcement of a possible judgment.
The application was brought by a plaintiff who says he owns the property, acquired at auction. He seeks to restrain the first defendant and the company from trespassing there. The first defendant disputes the claim and asserts an interest based on adverse possession.
In an earlier interlocutory ruling, the court ordered the first defendant and the company to leave the property pending trial, subject to a stay until 31 October 2024. The judge stressed that this was a provisional decision: no defendant had been given summary judgment, and the trespass claim remains open to be contested at trial. The company is not alleged to be continuing to trespass.
The plaintiff sought an order preventing the company from reducing its assets below €31,905, the net asset figure reported in its September 2023 financial statements. He argued that the first defendant’s sale of the company, after the court indicated it was minded to grant an injunction, and plans involving a company-owned Renault truck raised a risk that assets were being put beyond reach of damages or costs claims.
The company’s new owner, a haulage businesswoman, said she bought it for €9,000, with €5,000 paid and €4,000 withheld pending documents. The purchase was agreed orally. She said she had not known of the litigation when agreeing to buy, and that the truck was not part of the deal. The judge noted significant uncertainty about the transaction’s legal basis, but said the plaintiff had not sought to challenge the purchaser’s bona fides or establish that the sale was likely to be set aside.
The judge said there were reasons for suspicion about the timing and informality of the sale, but the evidence was inconclusive and would benefit from cross-examination. The plaintiff had not shown that the first defendant sold the company to frustrate enforcement. In any event, the application was against the company, whose current owners and management had not been shown to intend to dissipate assets. A possible return of the company to the first defendant’s control was too speculative to justify the order.
The court accepted that the company likely had assets in the jurisdiction, but found the plaintiff had not sufficiently particularised his claim against the company or established the required risk of dissipation. The judge refused the freezing order. The plaintiff may bring a new application against the company or first defendant if evidence emerges to justify it.