High Court orders ‘trespassers’ to vacate industrial site in Cork
Firm says defendants refused to remove caravans and vehicles from Little Island plot
The High Court has granted an injunction requiring several alleged trespassers to vacate the site of a partially decommissioned pharmaceutical plant in Co Cork. File photograph: Bryan O’Brien/The Irish Times.
The High Court has granted an injunction requiring several alleged trespassers to vacate the site of a partially decommissioned pharmaceutical plant in Co Cork.
The injunction was sought by OCW Properties Ltd against Patrick Doyle, Winnie Doyle, Eubert Doyle and persons unknown who are currently occupying a site the company owns the leasehold interest of at Wallingstown, Barrymore, Little Island.
The company claimed the Doyles, and several others, unlawfully moved their caravans and other vehicles on to the site just over a week ago. The defendants, the court heard, refused to leave the site, resulting in the company bringing proceedings before the High Court.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys granted an injunction at Thursday’s sitting of the High Court requiring the defendants, and all persons who have knowledge of the proceedings, to vacate the property.
The company has also secured an order prohibiting the defendants from trespassing on the site, or from impeding or obstructing it in taking possession of the site.
The court had previously granted the company permission to serve short notice of the injunction proceedings against the defendants, who were not present in court on Thursday. No representations were made on their behalf after their names were formally called by the court registrar.
Cian Cotter Bl, instructed by solicitor Brendan O’Sullivan for OCW, said the site is not suitable as a residence from a health and safety perspective. Due to the presence of the defendants, and others including children, on the site, his client was concerned that an accident could occur.
Counsel said his client contatced gardaí after becoming aware of the defendant’s presence on the site. The defendants were directed to leave but failed to do so. The company also attempted to engage with those on the site but they were not prepared to give up vacant possession of the site, he added.