Reynolds & anor -v- McDermott [2014] IEHC 219 (29 April 2014)

Reynolds & anor -v- McDermott [2014] IEHC 219 (29 April 2014)

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Ben Gilroy was properly served with the court order of 5 March 2012, that he had notice of its terms, and that his conduct on 31 August 2013 constituted a flagrant and serious breach of the injunctions, amounting to contempt of court. The evidence, including video and affidavits, established that Gilroy was a prime mover in organising and inciting the trespass and interference with the receivers' possession. His arguments regarding improper service, void order, and conspiracy were rejected as unfounded and irrelevant to the central issues.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 219
Parties
Plaintiff: Mark Reynolds; Plaintiff: Glen Cran; Defendant: Eugene McDermott; Respondent (alleged Contemnor): Ben Gilroy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Motion for Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Ben Gilroy found guilty of contempt of court for breach of the order of 5 March 2012.
Legal Topics
Service of Court Orders, Breach of Injunction, Personal Service Requirements, Standard of Proof in Contempt, Sanctions for Contempt
Civil Procedure Property Law Injunctions Contempt of Court Service of Court Orders Breach of Injunction Personal Service Requirements Standard of Proof in Contempt +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Reynolds

Plaintiff

Glen Cran

Plaintiff

Eugene McDermott

Defendant

Ben Gilroy

Respondent (alleged Contemnor)

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application in Civil Proceedings / Post Judgment Motion for Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ben Gilroy was properly served with the court order of 5 March 2012 with penal endorsement
  2. 2 Whether Ben Gilroy's conduct on 31 August 2013 constituted contempt of court by breach of the order
  3. 3 What sanction, if any, should be imposed for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that Ben Gilroy was properly served with the court order of 5 March 2012, that he had notice of its terms, and that his conduct on 31 August 2013 constituted a flagrant and serious breach of the injunctions, amounting to contempt of court. The evidence, including video and affidavits, established that Gilroy was a prime mover in organising and inciting the trespass and interference with the receivers' possession. His arguments regarding improper service, void order, and conspiracy were rejected as unfounded and irrelevant to the central issues.

Court Disposition

Ben Gilroy found guilty of contempt of court for breach of the order of 5 March 2012.

Orders

  • Court to hear submissions from Ben Gilroy on sanction; punishment under consideration up to and including a suspended sentence of imprisonment, but not actual imprisonment.