Business

Greg Kavanagh firm must prove capacity to pay legal costs in ongoing dispute

Beakonford brought legal action against Inchanappa House owner Oonagh Stokes and local resident Barbara Wilding

Beakonford, of which Greg Kavanagh is a director, brought proceedings against Inchanappa House owner Oonagh Stokes and local resident Barbara Wilding. Photograph: Frank Miller

Thu Jul 4 2024 - 19:29

A company of developer Greg Kavanagh will have to provide evidence it can pay the legal costs of a High Court case it is taking over what is claimed to be an attempt to extract a €6m payment from it in a dispute over a 96-home development next to Inchanappa House in Ashford, Co Wicklow.

On Thursday, the court set a date for the hearing of issues over whether Beakonford Ltd has the money behind it to provide security for costs in the case.

Beakonford, which Mr Kavanagh is a director of, last year brought an action against Inchanappa House owner Oonagh Stokes and local resident Barbara Wilding seeking an order that an appeal lodged by Ms Wilding with An Bord Pleanála over development at Inchanappa South be withdrawn.

It was claimed the appeal is not a bona fide planning objection and is in fact a “device for the purposes of demanding monies without any basis”.

READ MORE

The claims were denied but in the meantime An Bord Pleanála granted permission and Beakonford started carrying out works on the site.

Ms Stokes then brought proceedings claiming Mr Kavanagh was engaged in a campaign of intimidation and threats against her including directing his workers to pull down a fence separating the two properties and damaging lighting on her driveway.

She also issued separate proceedings challenging the An Bord Pleanála decision.

Mr Kavanagh has denied those claims and says they are essentially aimed at no more than delaying, frustrating and inhibiting the housing development.

They also, he says, represent a follow-through on threats previously made at a meeting in September 2022 when he says the Stokes side said they “would never allow development on the lands if they were not part of it”.

All three cases have yet to be heard but in the meantime, the first one, taken by Beakonford, has been progressing with the Stokes side making an application for security for costs which means the company must show it has the money to pay the legal bill should it lose the case.

Beakonford proposed that it would put up a bond as security for the costs but the Stokes side was not happy that there was evidence to say there was sufficient finance behind the bond.

Following negotiations, Eoin McCullough SC, for Ms Stokes, told Mr Justice Michael Twomey on Thursday that his side was still not satisfied with the bond being proposed. There were also concerns about the terms of the bond, he said.

This would mean the court would have to determine the issue, he said.

Paul Fogarty, for Beakonford, said it had been hoped to have an independent auditor’s report on the bond by now but due to summer holidays, it was not available. While it may still not make any difference to the defendants, his side would pass it on to them if it gets the report in the next while, he said.

The judge said he would reserve a date at the end of the month to hear the matter.

However, it seemed to him that where the amount of the security has been agreed, and where the key issue is now independent evidence to support the financial strength of the bond, he would encourage the parties to use the period in the meantime to see if some finality to this issue can be reached.

LATEST STORIES