Connors v Kinsella & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 696 (08 November 2021)

Connors v Kinsella & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 696 (08 November 2021)

Plaintiff has established a fair issue to be tried but has not demonstrated a strong case likely to succeed at trial for mandatory relief; balance of convenience does not favour granting interlocutory injunction restraining works or requiring reinstatement, given defendant's ownership, planning permission, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 696
Parties
Plaintiff: Jean Connors; First Named Defendant: Daniel Kinsella; Second Named Defendant: David Tarrant (practising under the style and title of Tarrant and Tarrant Solicitors); Third Named Defendant: Andrew Tarrant (practising under the style and title of Tarrant and Tarrant Solicitors)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Plenary Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; interim injunction discharged.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Undue Influence, Duress, Professional Negligence, Estate Administration, Mandatory Injunction, Balance of Convenience
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Undue Influence Duress Professional Negligence Estate Administration +2 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Connors

Plaintiff

Daniel Kinsella

First Named Defendant

David Tarrant (practising under the style and title of Tarrant and Tarrant Solicitors)

Second Named Defendant

Andrew Tarrant (practising under the style and title of Tarrant and Tarrant Solicitors)

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Plenary Proceedings / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining works on estate property
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff has established a fair issue to be tried
  3. 3 Whether mandatory interlocutory relief is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff has established a fair issue to be tried but has not demonstrated a strong case likely to succeed at trial for mandatory relief; balance of convenience does not favour granting interlocutory injunction restraining works or requiring reinstatement, given defendant's ownership, planning permission, and support from majority of siblings; damages are adequate remedy and plaintiff's undertaking is of little value; interim injunction is discharged.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; interim injunction discharged.

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining works and requiring reinstatement is discharged.
  • Application for interlocutory injunction refused.