Celio Properties Ltd & Ors v Fintan Monaghan & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 546 (15 September 2025)

Celio Properties Ltd & Ors v Fintan Monaghan & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 546 (15 September 2025)

The defendants have not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the plaintiffs' claim has no reasonable prospect of success, is bound to fail, or is an abuse of process. The proceedings raise disputes of fact and law that must be resolved at trial. The application to strike out is refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 546
Parties
Plaintiff: Celio Properties Limited; Plaintiff: Killross Properties Limited; Plaintiff: Liffey Bridge Properties Limited; Plaintiff: Springwood Properties Limited; Defendant: Fintan Monaghan; Defendant: Treasa Keegan; Defendant: Save Castletown Committee Company Limited by Guarantee
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Claim Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application to strike out refused; proceedings to continue to trial.
Legal Topics
Negative Declaration, Public Right of Way, Trespass, Abuse of Process, SLAPP Proceedings, Pre Action Letter, Declaratory Relief
Planning and Environment Civil Procedure Negative Declaration Public Right of Way Trespass Abuse of Process SLAPP Proceedings Pre Action Letter +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celio Properties Limited

Plaintiff

Killross Properties Limited

Plaintiff

Liffey Bridge Properties Limited

Plaintiff

Springwood Properties Limited

Plaintiff

Fintan Monaghan

Defendant

Treasa Keegan

Defendant

Save Castletown Committee Company Limited by Guarantee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Claim Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim is bound to fail and should be struck out under Order 19 rule 28 or inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings amount to an abuse of process or SLAPP
  3. 3 Whether a negative declaration can be granted in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants have not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the plaintiffs' claim has no reasonable prospect of success, is bound to fail, or is an abuse of process. The proceedings raise disputes of fact and law that must be resolved at trial. The application to strike out is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused; proceedings to continue to trial.

Orders

  • Proceedings listed for further directions on 13 October 2025.