Clipper BCS LLP & Anor v Foley & Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 72 (11 February 2025)

Clipper BCS LLP & Anor v Foley & Anor (Approved) [2025] IEHC 72 (11 February 2025)

The plaintiffs have not established a strong and credible case likely to succeed at trial as required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The facts are disputed and not supported by undisputed or strong evidence. Damages are an adequate remedy for both parties, and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo ante, with the stallion remaining at the defendants' stud pending trial. There is no evidence of risk to the stallion's welfare or property rights that would justify the mandatory order sought.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 72
Parties
Plaintiff: Clipper BCS LLP; Plaintiff: Steven Parkin; Defendant: Joseph Foley; Defendant: Ballyhane Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction
Outcome
Mandatory interlocutory injunction refused; interim directions given
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Ownership of Chattels, Partnerships, Equitable Relief, Horse Racing Law
Civil Law Equity Injunctions Ownership of Chattels Partnerships Equitable Relief Horse Racing Law

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clipper BCS LLP

Plaintiff

Steven Parkin

Plaintiff

Joseph Foley

Defendant

Ballyhane Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory interlocutory injunction directing the transfer of the stallion to a third-party stud farm
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have established a strong case likely to succeed at trial for such relief
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs have not established a strong and credible case likely to succeed at trial as required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The facts are disputed and not supported by undisputed or strong evidence. Damages are an adequate remedy for both parties, and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo ante, with the stallion remaining at the defendants' stud pending trial. There is no evidence of risk to the stallion's welfare or property rights that would justify the mandatory order sought.

Court Disposition

Mandatory interlocutory injunction refused; interim directions given

Orders

  • The stallion is to remain at the defendants' stud pending trial.
  • A vet nominated by the plaintiffs may examine the stallion at least every six weeks.