A DUBLIN public an yesterday failed to obtain High Court orders to stop the developers of the Jervis Street shopping centre from trespassing on or over his premises during building work.
Mr John Keating, a director of the pub, known as John M. Keating, on the corner of Mary and Jervis Streets had sought injunctions against the developers, Jervis Street Shopping Centre Ltd and Pierse Contracting Ltd.
Yesterday Mr Justice Keane said the scale of the development being carried out was such that some inconvenience was bound to result, not merely to the adjoining occupiers, but also to members of the public using the streets bordering the project.
But it must also be said that it was in everyone's interest that the development should be completed as rapidly as was reasonably possible, and the granting of the sort of relief claimed by Mr Keating could only have the opposite effect.
He said that Mr Keating sought to restrain the use by the builders of a tower crane on a site adjoining the licensed premises, to the extent that the jib moved into the air space above the pub, and also to restrict the parking of lorries and other vehicles close to the premises. He sought to have the restrictions imposed only during certain hours of the day.
In the present case, ii was perfectly clear that the developers and builders were asserting a right, by virtue of agreements between them and Mr Keating, to move the jib of the crane, at least to the extent that it was required for the implementation of the agreement by the erection of party walls.
The judge said he was satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried between the parties. If Mr Keating succeeded in establishing his contention that trade had suffered as a result of the building operations in the vicinity, including the movement of the crane over the premises, the court at the trial of the action would be in a position to award whatever was a fair and reasonable sum for any loss.
Mr Keating had not established that damages would be an inadequate remedy for any loss that may be established at the hearing and he was satisfied Mr Keating was not entitled to an interlocutory injunction.