O'Regan & anor -v- Carey & ors [2016] IEHC 534 (09 September 2016)

O'Regan & anor -v- Carey & ors [2016] IEHC 534 (09 September 2016)

The defendants' actions in installing gutters, downpipes, and connecting to service conduits on the plaintiffs' land were permitted by the express easements benefiting their property. Although the defendants failed to give reasonable notice before carrying out certain works, this constituted a technical trespass but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 534
Parties
Plaintiff: Tom O'Regan; Plaintiff: Dermot Coffey; Defendant: Joseph Carey; Defendant: Dan Mulvihill; Defendant: Rory O'Hanlon; Defendant: David O'Hanlon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Trespass and Nuisance Action / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Easements, Boundary Disputes, Injunctions
Property Law Easements Tort Law Trespass Nuisance Boundary Disputes Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom O'Regan

Plaintiff

Dermot Coffey

Plaintiff

Joseph Carey

Defendant

Dan Mulvihill

Defendant

Rory O'Hanlon

Defendant

David O'Hanlon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trespass and Nuisance Action / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' installation of gutters, downpipes, and service connections constituted trespass or nuisance on the plaintiffs' property
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were entitled to connect to service conduits on the plaintiffs' land under the terms of express easements
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages or injunctions for alleged trespass, nuisance, or negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' actions in installing gutters, downpipes, and connecting to service conduits on the plaintiffs' land were permitted by the express easements benefiting their property. Although the defendants failed to give reasonable notice before carrying out certain works, this constituted a technical trespass but did not affect their substantive rights under the easements. No evidence of loss or damage was adduced by the plaintiffs, and the reliefs sought were not warranted.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed