A businessman has rejected claims that he has breached court orders not to collect rents from tenants at an industrial estate in Dublin's north inner city.
Ossory Road Enterprise Park Limited has sought orders from the High Court seeking the attachment and committal of Declan Rogers to prison for allegedly breaching orders made by Ms Justice Siobhan Stack last year.
The orders were made in proceedings where the plaintiff claims it is the lawful owner of Ossory Road Business Park in Dublin 3, which it acquired in a 2021 sale from Everyday Finance DAC, which acquired the mortgage taken out with AIB, in respect of the park and is entitled to the rents from the units.
This is disputed by Mr Rogers, who has raised several issues about the sale of the units, which he claims are his property.
In rulings last year, Ms Justice Stack granted the plaintiff an injunction, which is to remain in place until the full dispute has decided by the court, restraining Mr Rogers and a related company, Rogers Recycling Limited, from collecting or attempting to collect rents from those renting certain units at the park.
The court heard that Rogers Recycling, of which Mr Rogers is a shareholder and director, claims it has a valid and binding lease for one of the units in the park. That claim is denied by the plaintiff.
The property at the centre of the dispute consists of several business units in the park, as well as shipping containers used for storage.
The rents from those units were to be collected by the plaintiff, and lodged into the client account of its solicitor, pending the outcome of the dispute.
Allegations
The plaintiff, represented by Andrew Fitzpatrick SC, with Frederick Gilligan Bl instructed by Augustus Cullen solicitors, claims Mr Rogers has breached the orders on multiple occasions and has continued to collect rent.
Mr Fitzpatrick said it is his client's claim that after its representatives went on site to collect rents, they were warned by Mr Rogers to leave the property.
Mr Rogers, from Kincora Avenue, Clontarf, Dublin 3, has also been allegedly aggressive towards the plaintiffs' representatives and is alleged to have assaulted one of the plaintiff's directors, James O'Donohoe, the court heard.
The plaintiff also alleges that some of the containers in the yard of the one of the units have been occupied by people residing and sleeping there, including several non-nationals and at least one young woman.
It is also alleged that Mr Rogers has created a fire hazard at the park by allowing waste to build up. A fire was started in one of the park's units in mid-June, the court heard.
The plaintiff has reported these concerns to gardaí, the Residential Tenancies Board and the HSE.
Mr Rogers, represented by Tim Dixon BL, instructed by solicitor Patrick Cunningham, rejects claims that he has breached the court orders.
Mr Dixon said that issues including the fire at the park or the claim that people were living in containers was not relevant to the allegation of contempt and have nothing to do with Mr Rogers.
Both the fire brigade and the GNIB have been in contact with Mr Rogers, and he was not a person of interest in relation to either matter.
Mr Dixon argued that the evidence was insufficient to commit Mr Rogers to prison. Counsel said that the evidence put before the court by the plaintiff in support of its claim of contempt was all "hearsay".
The allegations against Mr Rogers were scurrilous in the extreme, the court also heard.
'Trojan horse'
Mr Dixon said that in its motion the plaintiffs had sought alternative orders against his client, including an injunction preventing him from trespassing at the industrial estate.
Counsel said that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to use contempt proceedings as a "Trojan horse" to achieve other orders against his client.
Mr Dixon added that the plaintiff, who it is claimed is attempting to interfere with and damage Mr Rogers' business, was also refusing to accept rent from his client.
The contempt claim came before Mr Justice Brian Cregan on Thursday. The judge, after considering submissions from the parties, adjourned the hearing.
The judge said that while Mr Rogers appeared to be "on thin ice," he was satisfied that Mr Dixon had raised valid points about the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the standard of proof required before a court could be satisfied to jail somebody for contempt.
The judge said he was putting the matter back to allow the plaintiff submit some additional reliefs, including an injunction restraining any interference with the plantiff's collection of rent from the units, which the judge described as being "a belt and braces approach".
After those orders have been addressed, the judge said he was minded to return to the contempt application in October in order to see how things progress.
The judge said that he was proposing this course of action to ensure that orders of the courts are obeyed, and reminded the parties of the serious consequences that flow from any breach of a court order.
The judge added that he wanted to case manage the action, with a view to having the overall dispute determined as soon as possible.
The case will return before the judge later this month.
