Greg Kavanagh’s firm, Beakonford Ltd, is required to demonstrate its ability to cover the legal expenses of an impending High Court case regarding an alleged shakedown attempt over a contentious €6m payment connected to a 96-home development near Inchanappa House in Ashford, Co Wicklow.
The court, last Thursday, announced a hearing date to deliberate on whether Beakonford Ltd, for which Mr Kavanagh serves as a director, possesses sufficient funds to secure costs in this case. The company initiated legal proceedings in the previous year against Oonagh Stokes, the owner of Inchanappa House, and Barbara Wilding, a local resident, calling for the withdrawal of an appeal that Ms Wilding lodged with An Bord Pleanála relating to the Inchanappa South development.
The appeal was allegedly not a legitimate planning reservation, but rather a means to demand funds unjustly. Although these allegations have been refuted, permission was nonetheless granted by An Bord Pleanála and Beakonford started construction on the site.
Subsequently, Ms Stokes charged that Mr Kavanagh was orchestrating a harassment and intimidation campaign against her, which entailed having his staff dismantle a fence separating the two properties and inflicting damage to her driveway lighting. She has also separately contested the decision by An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Kavanagh dismisses these accusations, attributing them to efforts solely aimed at hampering and obstructing the housing project. This, he posits, substantiates threats made during a meeting in September 2022, where he alleges the Stokes camp declared they would obstruct any development on the lands if they weren’t involved.
The three cases remain to be adjudicated. However, the first one, instigated by Beakonford, is proceeding, with Stokes’ team filing a request for security for costs. This implies the need for the company to prove its financial capability to cover legal fees if the verdict is not in its favour. Although Beakonford suggested it would offer a bond as cost security, the Stokes party was not satisfied that there was demonstrable assurance of adequate funds supporting the bond.
Eoin McCullough SC, who is representing Ms Stokes, disclosed to Mr Justice Michael Twomey after discussions took place that they were not in agreement with the bond that had been suggested. He also voiced concerns regarding the bond’s stipulations. These discrepancies would warrant the court’s intervention to resolve the issue, he added.
On the other hand, Paul Fogarty BL, representing Beakonford, said they were optimistic about receiving an independent assessment of the bond sooner. However, due to summer vacations, there has been a delay. He expressed that even though this report might not influence the defendants’ stance, should it arrive soon, his party would share it with them.
Mr Justice Twomey has decided to set a hearing date for the end of the month. Still, he believes that as the security cost has been settled, and the principal problem now lies with the independent verification of the bond’s financial solidity, he would urge both parties to utilise this intervening period to see if a final resolution can be found.