An injunction has been issued by the High Court, at the behest of a widow, that bars Greg Kavanagh, a developer, and his firm Beakonford Ltd from engaging in unauthorised access to her estate, called Inchanappa House, located in Ashford, Wicklow County. The ruling by Justice Max Barrett also precludes any disruption by the defendants to the circular driveway leading to the home of Oonagh Stokes or the main entrance of the property.
In addition, the injunction also disallows any disturbances or intercessions on access to a site of telecom mast, held by Ms Stokes and her firm, located contiguous to Inchanappa. The judgement came after a four-day long deliberation on the terms of the injunction, awaiting the definitive decision on the full-scale lawsuit filed by Ms Stokes and Hibernian Cellular Networks versus the defendants.
The controversy emerged out of the proposal by Beakonford to construct 98 dwellings near Inchanappa House on a land formerly possessed by Brian, the late husband of Ms Stokes. Eventually, the lands were acquired by Nama and subsequently sold off to Kavanagh’s firm. Earlier in this year, permission for construction was bestowed upon Beakonford by An Bord Pleanála.
Predating the permission, Beakonford had accused Ms Stokes and another local woman of attempting to extort €6 million as part of a complaint submitted against the planning application from the construction company. Ms Stokes vehemently negated such allegations. While this case is still under consideration, preliminary works were initiated by Beakonford, which, Ms Stokes claimed, infringed upon her property and her access to the mast which had been necessitated to remain when her husband sold off the lands.
Ms Stokes initiated two separate litigations: primarily to halt disruption and unlawful access on her estate; and secondarily to challenge the planning permission issued by An Bord Pleanála. As a part of the proceedings against intercessions, she contended that Kavanagh had initially proposed to purchase Inchanappa House for €10 million, however, subsequently offered a considerably reduced purchase price. The allegations were refuted by Kavanagh and Beakonford.
In response to the ruling on Monday, Justice Barrett announced that he would issue the injunction barring disruptance to the driveway loop and the house’s main entrance, albeit ensuring such prohibition does not obstruct the construction company’s access to their lands.
Concerning the order to prevent disruption of access to the mast, the judge stated he would take into account both parties’ opinions since Mr Kavanagh had initially agreed to establish a hardcore path along part of the path during the hearing.
In response to Ms Stokes’ plea for a restraining order against Mr Kavanagh’s alleged threatening messages, the judge declined to give it, citing it necessitated proving that he had been sending such type of correspondences. Given that Mr Kavanagh had assented to liaise with her only through his attorneys, the judge simply required him to promise the court to abide by this.
An additional appeal was made for an injunction to stop the defendants from interrupting a water tank’s supply within the concerned property. The judge mentioned that he had no knowledge of any such disruptions, yet approved an order to sustain the conditions prior to the onset of the conflict. However, he noted the requirement for the order to be framed in a manner that would not hinder the defendants from conducting their private investigations to unearth the locations of any subterranean pipes.