Over 30 caravans which had allegedly been illegally trespassing at a computer chipmaker facility in South Dublin have vacated the property, the High Court has heard.
Lawyers for Xilinx Ireland, part of the AMD group, which employs 350 people at its campus at Logic Drive Citywest Business Campus, Saggart, Dublin 24, told the court on Friday that the caravans departed shortly after it commenced proceedings against the alleged trespassers last Wednesday.
The company, which makes semiconductors and software products for various industries, claimed that on June 8th between 25-30 caravans were towed onto its lands.
The caravans and other vehicles, it claimed, were illegally and without the company's permission on internal road, green area and car parking area within the campus.
It claimed that the occupants interfered with a water pump that forms an important part of its fire safety system, to obtain access to running water.
It also claimed that some of the occupants have been "joyriding" on quad bikes around the car parking area.
It further claimed the trespassers have deposited large quantities of refuse material, believed to have come from landscaping activities off campus, on the site.
Animals allegedly brought onto the site by the occupiers has resulted in animal waste being deposited on the company's lands, it was further claimed.
Talks
The court heard the Gardaí had been called and negotiations with those allegedly illegally occupying the lands were held.
Represented by Stephen Byrne Bl, the company launched High Court proceedings where it sought an injunction requiring the persons in occupation to immediately vacate and cease interfering with the lands.
The court granted the company permission to serve short notice of the proceedings on the occupants, whose identities were not known to the company.
When the matter returned before the court on Friday, Mr Byrne told Ms Justice Siobhan Stack that the occupants had left the property between 7pm-10pm on Wednesday.
Counsel said the occupants, following various discussions with his client, had promised to leave the site on two or three occasions but had failed to do so.
Counsel said the occupants had indicated they would move on by Wednesday evening, but his client was somewhat sceptical of that promise as prior undertakings given by the occupants to leave had not been fulfilled.
Counsel said that arising out of their departure on Wednesday his client no longer needed to pursue the injunction.
However, the company did have a concern over the large amount of material that had been left on the site by the occupants, and the possibility the occupants may return.
The judge, following an application by counsel, agreed to adjourn the action generally with liberty to re-enter the proceedings at a future date should the need arise.
Counsel added his client was grateful to the courts and to Gardaí for their assistance in dealing with the matter.
