The High Court found four defendants in contempt of court for failing to comply with earlier orders to move their caravans from the Cabragh Bridge area, but did not order their immediate attachment or committal.
In a judgment delivered on 3 October 2019, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys authorised An Garda Síochána to enter the caravans of the first, second, fifth and sixth defendants, remove occupants and prevent re-entry or interference with the council’s removal of the caravans. The order allows reasonable force if necessary.
The authority was stayed until 2pm on 4 October. If the four defendants moved the caravans more than two kilometres from Cabragh Bridge before then, the stay would continue while the caravans remained outside that radius. If any of them resisted the authorised action or interfered with the council’s removal, Gardaí could arrest them and bring them before the next convenient sitting of the High Court to answer for contempt. The balance of the council’s motion was adjourned to a date, if any, when a defendant was brought before the court under the order.
The proceedings arose from an unofficial halting site at Cabragh Bridge, Cabragh, Thurles, which the judgment said had existed for about 40 years. Tipperary County Council sought to proceed with a housing development on land it had acquired opposite the bridge. The judgment said six houses were built at a cost of €2 million and remained unoccupied and fenced off.
The first and second defendants had lived at the site since May 2015, and the fifth and sixth joined them in 2016, according to the judgment. The council had written to the defendants on 30 May 2019 requiring them to move. It began these proceedings on 27 June, seeking injunctions and declarations.
Reynolds J made orders on 11 and 18 July requiring the caravans to be moved. A further order on 31 July provided for service with a penal endorsement and allowed until 8 August to comply. The matter was later re-entered, and Justice Humphreys adjourned it on 25 September so defendants who appeared could obtain legal advice.
The second and sixth defendants, appearing in person, argued that suitable housing should be provided and that the council’s offers were unsuitable. The judgment said alternative accommodation had been offered at Ballybeg, Thurles, which they did not wish to accept. Justice Humphreys said that issue belonged at the stage when the original injunctions were made, rather than at enforcement.
The court said enforcement should be proportionate and that the order was directed at enforcing existing High Court orders, not punishment. The council was not pursuing the motion against the third, fourth, seventh or eighth defendants.