The High Court has refused an application by the County Kerry Coursing Club for access keys to two gates at Ballybeggan Park, finding that the club had not established a serious issue to be tried over its claimed right to use the land for coursing.
In a judgment delivered on 24 August 2022, Mr Justice Garrett Simons dismissed the club’s application for an interlocutory injunction against Ballybeggan Park Company Ltd, which owns the park. The application sought to prevent the company from obstructing access for preparations for a coursing meeting scheduled for January 2023, including by providing keys to the southern Burlington and Five Furlong gates.
The court said the club had received keys to the northern main entrance and Wicket Gate on 6 July, giving it vehicular and pedestrian access to all of the lands except the grandstand area. The company had said the caretaker provided access to the grandstand buildings around the date of a meeting, and the club had made no complaint about that arrangement.
The club argued it would need southern access from September, when temporary fencing was expected to be erected to prepare for the meeting. But the judge said there was no admissible evidence that fencing had been erected before October in previous years. The evidence indicated that fencing followed the farmer’s silage cutting and the arrival of 150 hares, which meant any need for access through the Burlington Gate could arise only in October or November. The judge also said it was unclear that access through the two northern gates would be inadequate.
The judgment said the club had not identified a tenable legal basis for its asserted right to use the land. It considered possible claims based on long use, prescription, customary rights or a deed of grant, but said the club had not outlined the legal principles supporting them. The court also noted evidence of past permission requests and payments or other benefits associated with coursing at the park.
The judge separately considered the balance of justice and concluded it favoured refusing an injunction. He said the absence of demonstrated harm, together with a newspaper article and correspondence about the proposed sale of the park, supported the inference that the motion’s urgency had been contrived to disrupt the sale. He described the application as vexatious and said the club had not complied with its duty of candour and had not come to court with clean hands.
The order refused the relief sought in the club’s motion of 20 July 2022. The wider proceedings remained ongoing: the case was listed for 25 August to address the motion’s costs and directions to prepare the proceedings for hearing.