Family took advantage of vigilantes forcing out security staff - judge

A woman's family took advantage of the fact a vigilante group forced out a group of security men who were employed to protect her repossessed home, a High Court judge has said.

While Patricia McLeish disavowed any connection with the group, it was clear members of her family were among those taking advantage of the incident when the group drove the security workers out with weapons, Mr Justice Robert Haughton said.

Two of her sons are now in occupation of the house along with a third person, the court heard.

The judge made the comments when ordering continuation of an injunction, pending full trial, preventing trespass to the house at Clonlara, Tulla, Co Clare, by Ms McLeish, her two sons Shane and Mark, and anyone else with knowledge of the order. It is effective from 5pm on Thursday.

Temporary order

The court granted a temporary order last week after hearing affidavits outlining a violent incident when the security employees were ousted from the house on October 15th by a large group.

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank had obtained a possession order in 2004. After nearly 12 years of postponements and failed legal proceedings to stop the repossession, by Ms McLeish and her estranged husband Thomas, the bailiffs moved in earlier this month.

Ms McLeish, in opposing the bank’s injunction preventing trespass, claimed she was about to bring a new challenge to the original 2004 repossession order on the basis the Circuit Court, where it was granted, had no jurisdiction to do so.

In the meantime, she said she would look after the house.

Ms McLeish, who said she had a large number of children and was living in temporary accommodation in a golf course holiday home in east Clare, said she had nothing to do with the group which gathered outside the house and drove the security staff out.

Nor did she have any connection with calls on social media for people to join the protest or with any offensive posts identifying the security staff and where they live, she said.

While Ms McLeish attended court to answer the bank’s injunction application, her sons Shane and Mark, who are also defendants, had not.

The bank said the McLeishs had, as recently as this month, had all their claims, including a claim that the original possession order was not valid, rejected by the High Court.

‘Grotesque’ abuse of process

This was a “grotesque” abuse of process and Ms McLeish had been led astray by so-called anti-eviction groups, it was argued.

The outstanding mortgage on the house was €139,000. While Ms McLeish claimed it was now worth €190,000 and there would be no prejudice to the bank in refusing its injunction, she had since had a costs order made against her.

Mr Justice Haughton said while Ms McLeish had made a number of allegations which she had not put in a replying affidavit to the bank’s trespass injunction, and had disavowed any knowledge of the “vigilante group”, it was clear members of her family had taken advantage of the situation. Two of her sons, one of whom is 16, were currently in occupation, he said.

The judge said he would grant the injunction, but that did not stop the defendants delivering a defence and contesting the proceedings.