A group of companies founded by ex-billionaire Sean Quinn has resolved legal action against members of a Co Fermanagh family for allegedly breaching undertakings not to protest near the firm’s headquarters.
Mannok Holdings brought contempt proceedings against relatives of Bernard McGovern, an amateur boxer convicted of assaulting two of its senior executives.
But a resolution between the two sides was announced at the High Court in Belfast today.
A statement read out by Mannok’s barrister, Peter Girvan, confirmed: “The mutual intention of the parties in agreeing the consent order is that any dispute between the parties is at an end.”
Legal action was initially taken by the company, formerly known as Quinn Industrial Holdings, after members of the family reportedly staged protests at its head offices in Derrylin. The incidents were said to be linked to the detention of 25-year-old Bernard McGovern on charges of assaulting two Mannok bosses at a Co Cavan service station back in February 2019.
Kevin Lunney, the rebranded firm’s operations director, was punched repeatedly and suffered a broken nose, while chief financial officer Dara O’Reilly had a cup of hot water thrown in his face.
McGovern, a medal-winning boxer from Springtown Road in Kinawley, Co Fermanagh, was subsequently convicted and jailed for that attack.
He is not accused of any involvement in separate events in September 2019, when Mr Lunney was abducted and tortured by a gang.
Settlement reached
In August 2020, four other members of the McGovern family gave voluntary undertakings not to protest in areas where they could be seen by senior representatives of Mannok. They also pledged that any placards used in future would not contain the names of the executives, or make any accusations against them, as part of a settlement reached in a lawsuit for alleged trespass and harassment.
Earlier this year the company commenced attempts to have Sean and Patrick McGovern held in contempt of those undertakings.
However, with no recent alleged incidents, legal discussions led to the case being formally stayed.
Mr Girvan stated: “The intention of the plaintiffs is that the application will only be brought back before the court in the event that the plaintiffs consider that the defendants (or any of them) have committed a further breach of the undertakings or agreement.”
Congratulating both sides for their efforts, Mr Justice McAlinden said: “A situation has been arrived at whereby the parties have hopefully resolved their differences and the undertakings that were initially given in this case will be honoured in both the letter and the spirt.”
