A resolution has been found for an application by property developer Greg Kavanagh and one of his companies for a High Court injunction restraining the purported sale of a Dublin property worth more than €2 million.
The wider action relates to a property known as Wynnstay House, Clonskeagh, Co Dublin, which has been earmarked for the development of residential units. If granted, the injunction sought by Mr Kavanagh would remain in place until the High Court had fully determined his action against defendants Ballycrag Developments, which is in receivership, and Anne O’Neill.
However, after the application opened before Mr Justice Brian Cregan on Wednesday, the parties resolved their differences in relation to the injunction.
Case adjourned
Martin Hayden SC, for the plaintiffs, said that some details of the settlement on the injunction application need to be finalised. The judge agreed to adjourn the case to later this week.
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
The music of 2024: Our critics’ verdicts on the best albums and acts of the year
‘One Christmas Day my brother set me on fire’: seven writers spill their most bizarre Yuletide yarns
Kellie Harrington fought hard for the dream ending she well deserved
In his wider action, Mr Kavanagh claims he has an agreement in place, arising out of the settlement of a legal dispute, allowing Greg Kavanagh Dev Co Ltd, of which he is a director, to buy the property from its owner.
Mr Kavanagh and the firm claim the agreement to buy the property has been reneged upon and that the property may be sold to another party unless stopped by the court. Mr Kavanagh and his company seek orders against Ms O’Neill and Ballycrag.
It is alleged that Ballycrag is the registered owner of the property and Ms O’Neill, of Mount Pleasant Square, Dublin, holds a charge over the property.
Mr Kavanagh also claims that Ms O’Neill is the spouse of Robert Walsh, with whom Mr Kavanagh has been involved in several property projects. In each of those projects Mr Kavanagh, of Bath Avenue, Dublin, alleges Mr Walsh has invested money through Ms O’Neill, who acts as her husband’s agent or proxy in the execution of formal documents.
The plaintiffs’ application for the injunction preventing the purported sale was opposed by Ms O’Neill and the receiver appointed over Ballycrag, John Healy, who argued the plaintiffs were in breach of the agreement Mr Kavanagh and his company sought to enforce.
There was no intention to sell the property, it was submitted.
It was further claimed Mr Kavanagh had not disclosed to the court that he allowed Ballycrag, of which it is alleged he had been the sole director, to be struck off the register of companies and was in default of certain legal obligations regarding that company.
Mr Kavanagh and his firm reject all claims of wrongdoing against them.
Judge unimpressed
When the application for the injunction opened before the judge, he said it was accepted by both parties that an arrangement had been entered into for sale of the property. He said many of the claims before the court, including allegations of breach of contract, were issues that can only be decided at the full hearing of the dispute.
The judge also said that he was not impressed with arguments being advanced on behalf of the defendants in their opposition to the granting of an injunction preventing the property from being sold until the matter has finally been decided by the court. The judge said that it could be argued that the defendants’ actions could be deemed as an attempt to engineer a breakdown of the agreement to sell the property.
Arthur Cunningham for the defendants strongly rejected that contention.
After the judge suggested that the sides should discuss the injunction application, he was informed an agreement regarding that aspect of the case had been reached.
Loan agreement
The case will return before the court on Friday.
The court previously heard that as part of the settlement arrangement of earlier High Court proceedings between Ms O’Neill and Mr Kavanagh over a loan agreement, it was agreed that Mr Kavanagh and his company would purchase Wynnstay House in a series of payments.
The plaintiffs claim they entered into a valid contract for sale in respect of the property and had paid a €200,000 deposit before difficulties emerged between the parties.
They then applied for an injunction because they believed the property was to be sold. However, that claim was denied by the defendants, who say there was never any proposal to sell the property to another party as alleged.
