Commercial Property

Dublin Port Company reaches agreement over site required to deal with Brexit issues

State-owned company had sought orders against McQuaid O’Flanagan Warehousing and Transport Ltd and one of its directors over a failure to comply with a court order

The Dublin port docks sign, located on East Wall Road.

Fri Aug 9 2019 - 19:28

Dublin Port Company has settled High Court proceedings it brought over a transport and warehousing company’s failure to vacate a site needed to deal with the impact of Brexit.

The state-owned DPC had sought orders against McQuaid O’Flanagan Warehousing and Transport Ltd and one of its directors, Gerald McQuaid, including one to seize the company’s property, over a failure to comply with a court order.

At the High Court on Friday, Mr McQuaid, as part of an agreement to resolve the dispute, gave a sworn undertaking before Ms Justice Teresa Pilkington that the company would vacate the site by September 11th next.

DPC had brought the proceedings over fears a standstill of truck traffic in the immediate aftermath of Brexit if its plans were hampered or delayed.

READ MORE

Earlier this year DPC had took an action in the Commercial Court against a number of parties aimed at securing possession of a site at Tolka Quay, which is located about 600m south of the Port Tunnel.

DPC intends to use the site as one of its truck parks and customs, immigration, agricultural inspection posts after Brexit.

The property had been mainly occupied by McQuaid O’Flanagan, which had a lease with the former owners of the site.

Lease expired

DPC bought the site in January from the former owners and said McQuaid O’Flanagan’s lease on 3.7-hectare site expired last November.

DPC had sought various orders against a number of parties that had been on the site, including one preventing McQuaid O’Flanagan trespassing or otherwise interfering with its right to take possession.

Those proceedings were resolved on consent in March. As part of that agreement, Mr Justice Robert Haughton made an order requiring the defendant company to vacate the property in tranches.

The site was to be fully vacated by McQuaid O’Flannagan by the end of July. However, DPC claimed that the defendant company had failed to comply with the order.

As a result of the defendant’s alleged breach, DPC sought orders appointing a receiver to sequester the property of both McQuaid O’Flanagan and Mr McQuaid, who DPC claimed were in contempt of court.

It also sought an order for Mr McQuaid’s attachment and possible committal to prison.

When the case returned before Ms Justice Pilkington the court was told that following discussions the parties had reached an agreement.

As part of that agreement, Mr McQuaid gave undertakings that the site would be fully vacated by September 11th next.

It was also agreed that in advance of that date the defendants would provide DPC with whatever access it needs to the site.

The judge congratulated the parties on reaching an agreement and informed Mr McQuiad of the serious consequences of breaching the undertakings.

The matter will be mentioned before the courts on dates in August and September.

LATEST STORIES