Szabo -v- Kavanagh [2013] IEHC 491 (31 October 2013)

Szabo -v- Kavanagh [2013] IEHC 491 (31 October 2013)

Plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts in her ex parte and interlocutory applications, including circumstances of her re-entry and arrest, prior correspondence, and financial means. The court exercised its discretion to refuse interlocutory relief due to deliberate misleading and significant culpable non-disclosure. Additionally, damages were found to be an adequate remedy, the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages was insufficient, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 491
Parties
Plaintiff: Gyorgi Szabo; Defendant: Tom Kavanagh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Trespass, Residential Tenancy, Duty of Candour, Receiver Appointment
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Trespass Residential Tenancy Duty of Candour Receiver Appointment

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gyorgi Szabo

Plaintiff

Tom Kavanagh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory injunctions for possession and trespass pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for alleged trespass and breach of constitutional rights

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts in her ex parte and interlocutory applications, including circumstances of her re-entry and arrest, prior correspondence, and financial means. The court exercised its discretion to refuse interlocutory relief due to deliberate misleading and significant culpable non-disclosure. Additionally, damages were found to be an adequate remedy, the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages was insufficient, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions refused

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunctions dismissed