High Court dismisses woman’s bid for injunction preventing sale of Knocknacarra home

The High Court has agreed to dismiss a businesswoman’s bid for an injunction restraining a financial fund and a receiver from selling what she claims is her Knocknacarra home.

Lucy Ewins has sued Promontoria Scariff Designated Activity Company and receiver Mr David O’Connor who she alleges are attempting to sell her home at ‘The Rise’.

The defendants strongly deny all allegations against them, and claim that it is an investment property, and Ms Ewin lives in Dublin.

In her proceedings against the defendants Ms Ewins seeks orders including an injunction restraining any trespass at, or any sale of the property until the full dispute has been determined.

Legal counsel for the defendants told the High Court Ms Ewin’s action was one of four sets of similar proceedings taken by her in respect of the property.

Those actions, counsel said, amount to “an abuse of process” and that the injunction aspect of her latest claim should be struck out.

Counsel said that in her most recent action, Ms Ewins had made serious accusations of wrongdoing against his clients that were carried in the national media, which are “fully contested”.

The claims included the defendant’s agents changing locks in the 4 bedroomed house and a representative of the defendants refusing to leave and sleeping overnight in the property.

Counsel submitted that Ms. Ewins must face the financial consequences of her failure to advance her claim and asked the court for an order requiring her to pay his client’s legal costs.

Counsel said that if her overall action is allowed to continue Ms. Ewins should provide his client with a statement of claim in the next two weeks.

Ms Ewins’ lawyers opposed the costs application and asked the court for additional time to speak to their client about the case.

Mr Justice Mark Sanfey agreed to strike out the application for the injunction to be put in place, pending the outcome of the claim.

The judge said he was making a costs order against Ms Ewins, but was putting a three month stay on that order – and wanted to see “significant progress” in her main action against the defendants.