A dispute over a business premises earmarked for a restaurant in Navan, Co Meath, has come before the High Court.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted permission on Tuesday to Yingjin Lin, her daughter Qin Pin Huang and her son-in-law Qun Huang, to serve proceedings seeking to prevent Frank Mullan from interfering with their right to use 25 Trimgate Street. The application was made on a one-side only represented basis by Fred Gilligan BL, for the plaintiffs.
Ms Yingjin Lin, who lives in China, bought the property last January from another man who had previously bought it from a receiver acting for asset acquisition firm Promontoria (Pluto) Ltd.
She delegated management to her daughter and son-in-law who live in Ireland.
READ MORE
In an affidavit, Ms Qin Ping Huang said she believes Mr Mullan (also known as Mullan) previously owned the property and did not challenge its sale by the receiver to the last owner.
She said after buying the property, an agreement was made with a prospective tenant to let it out to be used as a restaurant, starting at a rent of €36,000 annually.
However, she said efforts to access the property by the prospective tenant for renovation work were blocked by the defendant who also changed the locks. Mr Mullan also used his car to block access to the rear yard, she said.
In an exchange of pre-litigation correspondence between the parties’ solicitors, Mr Mullan told his solicitor that after he handed over the keys to the new owner who bought it from the receiver that he secured the property because a door was blowing open and there was antisocial behaviour taking place.
However, the plaintiffs’ solicitor contacted the previous owner who told him that after he got the keys, Mr Mullan changed the locks and posted documents purporting to assert his (Mullan’s) ownership.
In correspondence, it was asserted on behalf of Mr Mullan that he has ownership of part of the property which he and his tenants had occupied solely and exclusively. He did not have any interest in the property acquired from the receiver by the previous owner to him, it was also stated.
Injunction proceedings were threatened but held back to avoid inconvenience, delay and expense and in the hope the matter could be amicably resolved, Ms Qin Pin Huang said.
Matters came to a head when the prospective restaurant tenant said he was considering pulling out of the lease agreement where Mr Mullan continued to interfere with access and occupy certain parts of the property, she said.
A further request for an undertaking to desist from interference and blocking elicited no response and proceedings were brought, she said.
Mr Justice Cregan said the case could come back next week.
