High Court proceedings brought by the owners of Shelbourne Greyhound Stadium aimed at securing vacant possession of the venue’s 245-space car park have been resolved.
Last month Shelbourne Greyhound Stadium (SGS) Ltd applied to the court for injunctions against Best Carpark Ltd, which had operated the car park for a number of years, and its director Frank Moore of Foxlodge, Ratoath, Co Meath.
The defendants denied any wrongdoing and claimed that Best Carpark was entitled to operate the facility.
When the matter returned before the court on Friday counsel for SGS Stephen Brady BL told Mr Justice Garrett Simons that the case had been settled and the entire proceedings could be struck out.
Neil Steen SC, for the defendants, said that those orders could be made on consent.
No details of the settlement were aired in open court.
However, it is understood that arising out of discussions between the sides that it had been agreed that the applicant will get vacant possession of the car-parking facility.
Agreement
Previously the court heard that the parties had entered into an agreement several years ago to allow Best to generate income from the car park outside of racing times.
It was alleged by SGS that initial agreement had formally ended in 2016.
The defendants claimed that in 2016 Best had entered into a new agreement with SGS allowing it to continue to operate the car park for several more years.
However, SGS claimed that it never approved such an agreement, and then put the car park contract out to public tender.
It claimed the defendants did not participate in that process, where another party secured the contract to operate the car park.
The successful party, it was claimed, was unable to take over, and it was alleged that Best had refused to vacate the facility.
Correspondence between the SGS and the defendants failed to resolve the dispute, resulting in High Court proceedings being launched.
In its action SGS had sought orders from the court prohibiting the defendants from trespass, collecting money from car park users, or holding themselves out as having any entitlement to manage the property.
It had also sought orders that they remove any signage, machines and other property and provide keys and alarm codes relating to the property.
The defendants opposed the injunction proceedings and denied any wrongdoing.
