More than 30 caravans that had allegedly been trespassing at a computer chip-making facility in south Dublin have vacated the property, the High Court has heard.
Lawyers for Xilinx Ireland, part of the AMD group, which employs 350 people at its campus at Logic Drive Citywest Business Campus, in Saggart, Dublin 24, told the court on Friday that the caravans departed shortly after it commenced proceedings against the alleged trespassers last Wednesday.
The company, which makes semiconductors or chips and software products for various industries, claimed that, on June 8th, 25-30 caravans were towed on to its lands.
The caravans and other vehicles, it claimed, were illegally and without the company’s permission on an internal road, green area and car parking area within the campus.
It claimed the occupants interfered with a water pump, which forms an important part of its fire safety system, to obtain access to running water.
It also claimed that some of the occupants had been “joyriding” on quad bikes around the car parking area.
It further claimed that the trespassers had deposited on the site large quantities of material refuse, believed to have come from landscaping activities off-campus.
Animals were allegedly brought on to the site by the occupiers, and this had resulted in animal waste being deposited on the company’s lands, it was claimed.
The court heard that gardaí had been called and negotiations with those allegedly illegally occupying the lands were held.
The company, represented by Stephen Byrne BL, began High Court proceedings, where it sought an injunction requiring those in occupation to immediately vacate and cease interfering with the lands.
The court granted the company permission to serve short notice of the proceedings on the occupants, whose identities were not known to the company.
When the matter returned before the court on Friday, Mr Byrne told Ms Justice Siobhán Stack that the occupants had left the property on Wednesday evening.
Counsel said that, following various discussions with his client, the occupants had promised to leave the site on two or three occasions but had failed to do so.
He said that as they had departed, his client no longer needed to pursue the injunction. However, the company was concerned about the large amount of material left on the site by the occupants and the possibility they might return.
The judge agreed to adjourn the action generally with liberty to re-enter the proceedings if required.
