 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> AGS (ROI) Pension Nominees Ltd. v. Madison Estates Ltd. [2002] IEHC 99 (25 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2002/99.html Cite as: [2002] IEHC 99 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE HIGH COURT
No. 1998/10449P
BETWEEN
AGS (ROI) PENSION NOMINEES LIMITED
ERIN EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND
PLAINTIFFS
AND
MADISON ESTATES LIMITED
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Vivian Lavan delivered the 25th day of July 2002.
1. The Plaintiffs' claims herein is for an injunction restraining the Defendant its servants or agents or any person having notice of the making of such order from entering, occupying, placing or parking vehicles or otherwise trespassing upon the Plaintiffs' lands and premises known as Ballaugh House and Kimberlay House situated at Lower Mount Street in the City of Dublin. The Plaintiffs also claim damages for trespass, for slander of title and claim further and other relief.
2. It is to be noted that Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed that it was not necessary to join any other parties including all of the residents of the aforementioned premises.
3. The Plaintiffs herein have come into a Court of Equity seeking to defeat the residents of the Defendant being entitled to a car parking facilities which they have enjoyed from the construction of the premises in question.
4. I note that the Defendant did not establish even a scintilla of evidence as to the original planning permission for the development in question and also as to the revisions thereto which were eventually granted by the Planning Authorities. In the absence of such evidence it was rather unfortunate, to say the least, that they should seek to attack the architect who obtained the original planning permission.
5. The Plaintiffs patently had a weak case and I do not accept on the balance of probability that they made anything of what might be described as a stateable case for this Court to consider.
6. My view overall is of a Plaintiff institution intent on overpowering the residents who would find it difficult to fund a defence to this unmeritorious claim.
7. I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs' written submissions are not well founded on the evidence taken overall. I am satisfied, again on the evidence, that the Defendant's submissions are realistic and appropriate. In relation to the evidence I accept the people who give evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff. On the other hand I consider Mr. Murray's and Mr. O'Neill's evidence to give compelling support to the Defendant's contentions in their defence. I am satisfied, on the balance of probability, that it takes the ground from under the Plaintiffs' contentions. Overall I prefer the candour and accuracy of all of the Defendant's witnesses. I accept their evidence as fact.
8. I am satisfied on the balance of probability that planning permission for the entire development would not have been granted by the Planning Authority without parking places being provided for the residents of the apartments. As stated I find the evidence of Mr. Murray and Mr. O'Neill, on behalf of the Defendant, to be compelling in this regard.
9. In the circumstances, exercising my equitable jurisdiction, having regard to the foregoing I refuse the Plaintiffs' claim for an injunction. I will also dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for damages for trespass and/or for slander of title.