The High Court yesterday granted an injunction preventing 20 residents picketing or trespassing on the property of a company which has agreed, subject to planning permission, to allow Esat Digifone erect a mast on its property in Co Cavan.
The interlocutory order was sought by Mr Vinog Faughnan, for Gray Quarries Ltd, over its property at Taghart, Shercock. It applies until the hearing of the action.
The court was told Gray has an agreement with Esat for the construction of a mast on its property but that agreement would come into effect only if planning permission was secured for the mast. Planning permission had been refused by Cavan County Council but that decision was under appeal to An Bord Pleanala, it was stated.
Last July the court granted an interim order restraining 20 local people, who object to the proposed mast, from trespassing on its property.
Granting the interlocutory application, Mr Justice Kelly said there was no doubt that a large number of people had attended at Gray's property on a previous occasion to protest at the proposed erection of the Esat mast and the company was afraid that would be repeated.
He had no doubt that what had occurred on that occasion was a picket of the quarry. No trade dispute was involved and the protections which trade disputes have under law did not apply.
Citizens had the right to peaceful protest but there were limitations on that right, the judge said. Having examined the affidavit evidence, he concluded the company had demonstrated that its apprehension that there could be a repeat of the incident was reasonable. He was satisfied that there was a serious issue to be tried - whether the defendants' activities were lawful or not - and that there was primafacie evidence that the activities were unlawful.
He was further satisfied damages would not be an adequate remedy and noted he had little information on the defendants' ability to pay any damages. On the balance of convenience, an injunction should also be granted.
He said the residents could make their protest without having to attend at the company's premises. They could organise meetings and distribute literature provided it was not defamatory.
The judge granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants, their servants or agents or anyone acting in concert with them, or with knowledge of the making of the orders, from attending at, watching or besetting, or trespassing on the company's premises pending the trial of the action.