The High Court has refused Teresa and Sean Barrington’s application to set aside an earlier ruling that lifted an interim injunction over a business premises in Ballybrit, Galway. Mr Justice Twomey held that the Barringtons had not shown the exceptional circumstances needed for one High Court judge to set aside another judge’s order.
The application concerned Unit J, Oldenway Business Park, which the judgment describes as Sean Barrington’s carpentry premises. The Barringtons had obtained an interim injunction on 11 June 2024 preventing David O’Connor and M.R.C.S Ltd from seeking possession. On 18 June, Mr Justice Nolan lifted it after considering evidence that M.R.C.S Ltd was the property’s registered owner and finding that the material before him did not support an injunction.
The Barringtons then asked Mr Justice Twomey to set aside that interlocutory order. They relied on their earlier registration as owners, a May 2024 letter seeking vacant possession, and alleged legal and procedural errors in Mr Justice Nolan’s decision. They argued, among other things, that the hearing had been unfair. The judgment says they did not appeal Nolan J’s ruling, despite being told they were still within time to do so, and that the appeal period had since expired.
Mr Justice Twomey said an interlocutory order can sometimes be revisited by the judge who made it if circumstances change. But he considered this application to be an attempted appeal to a different High Court judge, rather than an application based on changed circumstances. He found no evidence of fraud or comparable exceptional grounds. He also rejected the complaints about the handling of affidavits and the wording of the possession letter, describing the latter as standard language rather than a physical threat.
The judgment records that Michael Macken, who was in court with the Barringtons, was assisting them despite having no legal qualifications. The court relied on unchallenged sworn evidence, submissions and earlier judicial comments on that assistance. It did not determine that Mr Macken had committed an offence.
Mr Justice Twomey refused the set-aside application. He said the court’s provisional view was that all seven defendants were entitled to costs, noting that five defendants had been served with motions concerning relief not sought against them. He did not make final costs orders in this judgment. The case was listed for mention a week later to address any final orders and costs, if needed. The judgment also said the defendants could ask the Court of Appeal to require security for costs if the Barringtons pursued a further appeal; it did not itself order security.