Dispute between woman and receiver who claimed he was intimidated struck out

A dispute between a businesswoman and a receiver who had claimed she was acting in a threatening and intimidating manner towards him has been struck out at the High Court.

Declan Taite, who was appointed receiver over properties of the husband of Maireád Barry, had claimed she had previously threatened to drive her vehicle through the front window of his Dublin offices.

Ms Barry has said she had no intention of driving through the office window.

On Friday, Mr Justice Senan Allen struck out, on consent, the proceedings by the receiver against Ms Barry, of Cairn Woods, Ballyviniter, Mallow, Co Cork.

When the case was initiated, Mr Taite sought injunctions to prevent Ms Barry and her servants and agents from behaving in a threatening, abusive, intimidating and insulting manner towards him and his associates.

Mr Taite also sought orders to prevent Ms Barry from entering his company office in Dublin 2.

Barrister Anthony Thuillier, for Mr Taite, told the court on Friday that Ms Barry had earlier this year threatened to drive her car through his client's premises.

Counsel said Ms Barry’s “intimidating and threatening” behaviour had inflicted “emotional stress” on his client. The matter was reported to gardaí, who felt the alleged threats should be taken seriously, he said.

In a sworn statement to the court in April, Mr Taite said he was appointed receiver over three Co Cork properties belonging to Ms Barry's husband, Tim Sheahan.

He also alleged an issue had arisen regarding a 2020 sale of several Limerick apartments to a company of which Ms Barry is a director.

Mr Taite, who with another insolvency practitioner, was previously appointed receiver over these properties, claimed the receivers contacted Ms Barry about that issue, and she was abusive and threatening.

On Friday, Mr Thuillier said the threatening behaviour had ceased since the case last came before the court in April.

Representing herself, Ms Barry said she had been “severely prejudiced” by the behaviour of Mr Taite.

The ordeal had affected her physical and mental health, as well as her family, she said.

She told the court she “had no intention” of driving through Mr Taite’s office.

She also said she would continue undertakings not to interfere with the receiver’s work.

When she said she wanted discovery of documents relating to the receivership, Mr Justice Allen said these did not relate to this case which centred on her behaviour towards the receiver.

Ms Barry said she required these documents to defend her name and reputation.

Mr Thuillier said his client was happy for the matter to be struck out with liberty to re-enter. Mr Taite was no longer seeking damages against the defendant for harassment and was not seeking costs, he said.

The matter was struck out with liberty to re-enter.