A dispute between neighbouring landowners over where the boundary of their properties lies is holding up the construction of a 74-house development in north Co Dublin, the High Court has heard.
As a result of the row, a partnership of businesspeople comprised of Fintan Price, Frank Wilson, Tom Phelan, Bernard Carroll and Laurance Schwer, who wish to start constructing houses on land at Rush, Co Dublin, have sued Camillus Archer, a market gardener farmer who owns a farm beside the partnership's lands, and Mr Archer's son Derek Archer.
In its proceedings, the partnership seeks orders including an injunction restraining Mr Archer Snr, of Sandyhills, South Shore Road, Rush, Co Dublin, and his son, of Sandyhills, Rush, Co Dublin, from trespassing on the property in question or from interfering with the intended construction works due to be carried out on the lands.
Represented by David Geoghegan BL, the partnership claims that Mr Archer Snr is disputing the boundaries of his land and the partnership's land.
The matter is urgent as the row is holding up work on the housing development, Mr Geoghegan added.
The partnership claims that earlier this year the Archers entered the plaintiff's property and erected concrete poles in places where the Archers claim the boundary lies, and deposited steel waste on the partnership's land.
Mr Geoghegan said agents working for the partnership went on its land to mark out the boundary between the two properties in late June. This was done as part of the planned construction works on the land.
The agents were working off a 2015 map, which was submitted to the Land Registry to clarify the correct boundary between the properties, which it is claimed marks out the boundary between the properties and was signed by Mr Archer senior.
While doing this work they claim the defendants arrived on the site and removed the marker poles.
It is claimed that Mr Archer Snr told the partnership's agents that the boundary was not being marked out correctly and said his signature on the 2015 Map was a forgery.
The Archers also objected strongly to the works being carried out, it is alleged.
It is claimed that the partnership's agents were also verbally abused by the defendants.
