The High Court has concurred with the decision to dismiss an injunction sought by a businesswoman to prevent a financial fund and a receiver from marketing her alleged Galway residence. The businesswoman in question, Lucy Ewins, accuses Promontoria Scariff Designated Activity Company and receiver David O’Connor of attempting to offload her property located at The Rise, Knocknacarra in Galway.
Through her actions against the defendants who adamantly refute all allegations against them, Ms Ewins is fighting for injunctions to halt any trespass or potential property sale until the dispute’s resolution. Earlier in the year, she won court approval to pursue her injunction.
However, her application was dismissed on Thursday as the defendants claimed that Ms Ewins failed to imminently progress her injunction. Niall Ó hUiggin BL, defending party’s counsel, stated that Ms Ewins has initiated four similar sets of proceedings concerning her property, which he characterised as “an abuse of process.” He suggested that her most recent claim should be dismissed.
The defence counsel also highlighted serious allegations by Ms Ewins against his clients that circulated within national media, stressing these claims are heavily contested. In light of Ms Ewins’ inability to expedite her claim, he proposed that the court hold the plaintiff responsible for his client’s legal fees. He suggested that Ms Ewins, should her case continue, supply a statement of claim within a fortnight.
GN & Co Solicitors, representing Ms Ewins, contested the proposed legal fees and requested from the court additional time to consult their client about the matter. However, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey concurred with the dismissal of the injunction application until the case is concluded.
The judge made a decree for costs against Ms Ewins, assigning a three-month hiatus on that order. During this period, he expects the plaintiff to show considerable advancement in her primary case against the defendants. He warned that the court might lean towards honouring a potential application by the defendants to strike out the proceedings if progress is not achieved – a concern shared by Ms Ewins’ legal team.
The issue was postponed. The court was earlier informed by Ms Ewins that since 2014, the property has been her primary dwelling. Any assertions from the defendants that the property is an investment or that her residence is in Rush, County Dublin, were dismissed by her. In 2018, Promontoria eventually secured the mortgage on the property. Ms Ewins disclosed that the Circuit Court had initiated repossession procedures regarding the property, and in 2020 Mr. O’Connor was appointed by Promontoria as the property’s receiver.
She alleges that the defendant’s agents have altered the locks on the four-bedroom house, are attempting to prepare the property for auction, and that one of the defendant’s representatives refused to vacate the premises, instead choosing to spend the night. Such behavior, she asserts, constitutes an illegal intrusion. She also states that she has been subjected to several years of bullying and harassment by the defendants. However, her allegations have been categorically rebuffed.