A High Court judge has asked lawyers representing a company involved in a dispute over alleged trespass at a Dublin property if they were seeking an injunction “to facilitate a dog”.
Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds made the remark after lawyers for Belwall Limited sought ex parte orders on Thursday against Darren Cummins over alleged trespass at a property sold by him to the plaintiff for €2.4 million earlier this year.
Morgan Shelly BL, for Belwell, part of the Townmore Group, said the defendant has refused to give up vacant possession and has trespassed there on several occasions since the sale closed.
Mr Cummins had told an agent of Belwell on one occasion at the property that, because his (Mr Cummins’s) phone calls “to Townmore” were not being returned, he would “have to do things his way”, the court heard.
Another man accompanying Mr Cummins had shouted at the agent: “Tell him to transfer the rest of the money”, it was stated.
In recent days, a sign saying “private property keep out” was placed on the property, a padlock and chains were placed on the gate and an agent of the plaintiff found a dog in the house, the court heard.
A full bowl of food was left for a dog and the agent had filled up its bowl to ensure if had enough to drink.
Welfare of dog
There were concerns for the welfare of the dog, which the defendant is claimed to have been caring for, and orders were being sought to permit its safe removal.
Belwell says it is unable to carry out works on the house and has asked the defendant to collect the dog and a car left on the property.
In its proceedings, Belwall wants orders including an injunction preventing Mr Cummins, of Briarfield Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, trespassing or attending at the property located on Hole in the Wall Road, Donaghmede, Co Dublin.
It seeks further orders including preventing the defendant placing any animals or vehicles at the property and requiring him to deliver up vacant possession of the property. A declaration that Belwall Ltd is the owner of the property is also sought.
On Thursday, Ms Justice Reynolds asked if the injunction was sought “to facilitate a dog” , adding the ISPCA could be notified about that situation in circumstances that did not require a court order.
She accepted there might be “something suspicious” in the background but said she was not prepared to make any orders on an ex-parte basis (one side only represented) in the absence of the defendant.
The judge granted Belwall permission to serve short notice of the injunction proceedings on Mr Cummins and adjourned the matter to next week.