Enright & Ors v Ballybeggan Park Company Ltd (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The present judgment concerns an application for an interlocutory injunction brought by the trustees and officers of an unincorporated association, referred to as the Coursing Club, seeking to restrain the landowner, Company A, from obstructing access to Ballybeggan Park, a former racecourse, for the purpose of preparing the lands for a coursing meeting scheduled for January 2023. The Coursing Club requested keys to two additional gates, alleging that access through the two gates currently available was insufficient.

Company A owns the lands known as Ballybeggan Park, having acquired them in 1944 through a purchase funded by fifty shareholders. The Coursing Club claims to hold approximately 8% of the shares in Company A, making it the largest single shareholder, and asserts the right to appoint a director to the company’s board.

The coursing activity on the lands has a long history, dating back to at least 1883, with disagreement between the parties regarding the origins and nature of the rights to carry out coursing. Company A contends that coursing was initially operated by itself and later licensed to the Coursing Club from the 1970s, with fees paid initially but not recently. Part of the lands is leased to a farmer who harvests silage biannually.

Ballybeggan Park has four gated access points: two northern gates (the main entrance and the Wicket Gate) to which the Coursing Club has had access since 6 July 2022, and two southern gates (the Five Furlong Gate and the Burlington Gate) to which the club does not currently have keys. The only area without access to the Coursing Club is the grandstand area, access to which is provided by a caretaker around coursing meetings.

The Coursing Club contends it requires access from the southern gates from September onwards due to expected obstruction at the northern gates caused by temporary fencing for hare training, although it failed to provide admissible evidence that such fencing had previously been erected before October in any year.

The dispute escalated when Company A changed the locks on the gates in June 2022, rendering the Coursing Club's keys ineffective. Instead of requesting new keys from the racecourse chairman as previously done, the Coursing Club issued a solicitor’s letter threatening immediate legal proceedings, which were commenced shortly thereafter. Company A justified the lock changes on security grounds, particularly concerning the southern gates.

Underlying the access dispute is a broader disagreement over corporate governance and the potential sale of Ballybeggan Park by Company A, which the Coursing Club opposes unless an alternative venue for coursing is provided. The Coursing Club had initiated separate minority shareholder proceedings under the Companies Act 2014, which were discontinued following Company A’s assurances regarding shareholder approval of any sale.

The present proceedings were initiated on 23 June 2022, with pleadings and appearances exchanged by July 2022. The interlocutory injunction motion was filed on short notice and heard in August 2022. The Court dismissed the application at the hearing and promised a detailed judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Coursing Club has established a serious issue to be tried regarding an enforceable right to access Ballybeggan Park for coursing activities against the landowner, Company A.
2. Whether an interlocutory injunction restraining Company A from denying access to the southern gates should be granted pending trial.
3. How the balance of justice and convenience should be assessed in the context of the interlocutory injunction application.
4. The implications of the conduct of the Coursing Club in relation to the alleged urgency and motives behind the injunction application.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (The Coursing Club)

• The Coursing Club claims a right to use Ballybeggan Park for coursing activities based on long user, asserting this right is enforceable against the landowner.
• The club contends it requires access to the southern gates from September onwards due to expected obstruction at the northern gates caused by temporary fencing for hare training.
• The club emphasizes its status as the largest single shareholder in Company A and its entitlement to appoint a director.
• The Coursing Club objects to the proposed sale of Ballybeggan Park unless an alternative venue for coursing is provided, referencing a prior aborted sale in 2008 where such accommodation was agreed.
• The club maintains it has been provided keys to all four gates historically and seeks to maintain that status quo.
• At the hearing, counsel described objections to a newspaper article linking the injunction to the sale as "nonsense" and "frothy enthusiasm".

Respondent's Arguments (Company A)

• Company A denies the existence of an enforceable right to access the lands for coursing beyond what has been permitted by it.
• The landowner asserts that coursing activities have been conducted under license or permission, not as of right, and that no legal basis supports the Coursing Club’s claim.
• The locks were changed for legitimate security reasons, especially concerning the southern gates, due to unauthorized access by third parties.
• Company A criticizes the Coursing Club’s approach of issuing proceedings and a solicitor’s letter rather than seeking keys through established channels.
• The landowner submits that the Coursing Club’s application is vexatious and designed to frustrate the proposed sale of Ballybeggan Park, as evidenced by a contemporaneous newspaper article and correspondence.
• Company A argues that the Coursing Club has failed to demonstrate any material harm or urgency justifying an interlocutory injunction.
• The landowner emphasizes its property rights and the need to secure its lands, asserting that the provision of keys to two gates is reasonable access.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by applying the established principles governing interlocutory injunctions, focusing first on whether the Coursing Club had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried. The court found that the Coursing Club failed to articulate any coherent legal basis for its asserted right to use Ballybeggan Park for coursing activities against the landowner. Mere long user was insufficient without legal foundation, and the club did not engage with essential legal requirements such as use "as of right" versus use by permission.

The court noted inconsistencies in the Coursing Club’s case, including contradictory claims regarding customary rights and waivability, and the absence of evidence supporting claims of prescriptive rights or deeds of grant. The documentary evidence suggested that coursing activities were conducted with Company A's permission, often involving payments or benefits, undermining claims of use "as of right."

Having found no serious issue to be tried, the court nonetheless considered the balance of justice. It observed that the Coursing Club suffered no material harm from the refusal of the injunction, as it had access to two gates and failed to prove necessity for access to the southern gates before October. The alleged harm relating to hare welfare was not persuasive.

The court emphasized the importance of property rights and security concerns, noting that the locks had been changed for legitimate reasons. It rejected the Coursing Club’s argument equating access rights with ownership rights and found no justification for overriding the landowner’s rights.

The court further analyzed the conduct of the Coursing Club, inferring from contemporaneous public statements and correspondence that the injunction application was a tactical measure to frustrate the proposed sale of Ballybeggan Park. The club’s failure to disavow the newspaper article and its demands regarding the purchaser’s identity supported this conclusion. The court found the application vexatious and the Coursing Club lacking candour and clean hands.

On balance, the court concluded that the application for interlocutory injunction should be refused.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to REFUSE the application for an interlocutory injunction sought by the Coursing Club.

This refusal was based primarily on the failure of the Coursing Club to establish a serious issue to be tried and secondarily on the balance of justice favoring the landowner’s property rights and security concerns. The court found no material harm to the Coursing Club and concluded that the urgency asserted was contrived to impede the proposed sale of Ballybeggan Park.

The direct effect is that the Coursing Club will not be granted immediate access to the southern gates pending trial, but retains access through the northern gates. No new legal precedent was set, and the decision does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties beyond the interlocutory stage.