The High Court has refused an application by Jean Connors, administrator of her late mother’s estate, to continue an injunction stopping her brother Daniel Kinsella from carrying out development works at their former family home in Bray, County Wicklow. Mr Justice Mark Sanfey ruled on 8 November 2021 that the balance of convenience favoured Kinsella, the property’s registered owner.
The court discharged interim orders made in October 2019 that had halted work, required reinstatement of the property and required construction equipment and materials to be removed. It also discharged an undertaking Kinsella had given the court to comply with those orders. The judge did not decide whether Kinsella had complied with the interim orders; that question remains part of an attachment and committal application adjourned to the trial.
Connors brought the underlying proceedings as administrator of Frances Kinsella’s estate. She seeks to set aside a 2013 transfer of the property to her brother, alleging undue influence or duress and professional negligence. Kinsella denies the allegations. The judge found that Connors had established a fair issue to be tried, but had not shown a strong case likely to succeed at trial—the standard relevant to the mandatory interim relief she sought. He stressed that the underlying claims remain unresolved.
The works concern a garage planned to replace old outbuildings. Wicklow County Council granted planning permission in 2014, describing the existing buildings as being in poor condition and the proposed garage as a visual improvement. Connors argued that the works exceeded what was needed and that the unfinished site was unsafe and had harmed the property. An engineer’s reports raised concerns about excavations and the condition of boundaries. Kinsella disputed the reports and said the work was intended to comply with planning permission; the court noted that the present condition was unsatisfactory after the works were interrupted.
In refusing to continue the injunction, the judge said there was no evidence that completing the permitted development would devalue the property. He considered that any loss in value could be addressed through damages if Connors succeeded, and that allowing the work to be completed was more appropriate than requiring it to be undone. He also took into account the estate’s nil value and the lack of substance in Connors’s undertaking to pay damages if the injunction proved unfounded.
The parties may file brief written submissions on costs or other consequential orders within 14 days. The court encouraged them to consider whether compromise or mediation could resolve the wider family dispute.