AN undertaking was given to the Supreme Court yesterday that no further property of Mrs Geraldine Gilligan would be disposed of pending further High Court proceedings.
However, eight horses and two vehicles have been sold after being seized two weeks ago, the court was told.
The undertaking was given on behalf of the sheriff for Co Kildare at the end of a day long hearing of an appeal by Mrs Gilligan against the High Court's refusal last Thursday to grant an injunction preventing the disposal of the goods.
Mrs Gilligan, of Mucklon, Enfield, Co Kildare, had been granted a temporary injunction on November 22nd halting the disposal of the goods.
Her husband, Mr John Gilligan, is at present being detained in England on drug trafficking charges.
Mrs Gilligan's proceedings are against the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB); Mr Barry Galvin, Inspector of Taxes and Chief Legal Officer, CAB; Mr Frank Lanigan, Revenue Sheriff for Co Kildare; and the Revenue Commissioners.
The application by Mrs Gilligan last Thursday was for an interlocutory injunction to halt the disposal of the assets pending a full hearing of the action by the High Court.
The three judge court heard lengthy submissions yesterday by counsel for Mrs Gilligan and the defendants, and then retired to consider the case.
Giving judgment the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said that the issue of whether Mrs Gilligan was a chargeable person under the income tax code and the Finance Act could and should be resolved with reasonable expedition in the High Court.
It' the parties were to apply to the President of the High Court for an early hearing, they would be dealing with the holding or return of the property within a short time.
The Supreme Court did not consider that there were exceptional circumstances which would justify a mandatory injunction directing the return of goods to Mrs Gilligan pending a determination of the issue.
The Chief Justice said the court did not consider that the balance of convenience would be properly served by an order restraining the disposition by the sheriff of the property at present in his possession.
It was extremely likely that instead of a formal order an undertaking would be given not to dispose of the property, and that an undertaking be given by both parties to make an application to the President of the High Court for an early, determination as a preliminary issue as to whether Ms Gilligan was a chargeable person.
The Chief Justice put a time limit of three months on the undertaking. Mr Justice Barrington and Mr Justice Murphy agreed with his judgment.
Earlier Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mrs Gilligan, said the sheriff had taken away her entire fixtures and fittings, household goods and personal effects. She was left with a 32 inch television, beds and a fridge freezer which, she said, was left only because they could not unplug it.
Household goods were what made up a home. It was a very intimate form of attack on somebody to take their furniture. It was a Dickensian sort of act.
Mr Hardiman said Mrs Gilligan could not enjoy her home in any normal way. She could not, for instance, have her children there for Christmas. She was prepared to undertake that she would keep the goods where they were until the trial of the action.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the defendants, said it was an error to suggest that Mrs Gilligan had been left with "just sticks to sit on". In the dwelling house the furniture had been left. Beds, ornaments, bunks, computer games, clocks and fridges had also been left.
Horses and two Land Rovers had been sold after the injunction had been refused on Thursday.
The Chief Justice said that was at a time when the defendants were aware that Mrs Gilligan was considering exercising her constitutional right to appeal.
Mr Nesbitt said there was no notice of appeal then.