An interim injunction restraining a married couple from reducing their assets in this jurisdiction below £100,000 has been discharged at the High Court.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan yesterday refused an interlocutory application by DCD Builders Ltd to continue the interim order restraining Mr Robert Osbourne and his wife Fiona from reducing their assets below £100,000.
The judge said the circumstances had changed since the interim order was granted by Ms Justice Laffoy on January 20th. In his view, in the present circumstances, the evidence did not establish that it was the Osbournes' intention to frustrate any court order or to evade any obligations to DCD.
He said the interim order was now discharged and reserved the issue of costs.
The injunction application has its origins in a dispute between the Osbournes and DCD over the construction of the Osbournes' home, and extras, at Ballybride, Rathmichael, Co Dublin. The dispute is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings.
In an affidavit yesterday, Mr Osbourne, sales and marketing director with BWG, a food distribution company, said the claim for the injunction was "wholly misconceived".
He also claimed that, in the application on January 20th for an interim injunction against himself and his wife, there had been a material non-disclosure of facts relating to legal proceedings involving DCD.
DCD claimed to be owed £130,000 but the company agreed yesterday that amount had been overstated.
Mr Osbourne also said there was "nothing in the least untoward" about his forthcoming move to England and he had no intention to frustrate the execution of any judgment which DCD might obtain.
In a replying affidavit, Mr Sean Dunne, of DCD Builders, rejected the claims of material non-disclosure of facts and said full and frank disclosure was made in the proceedings before Ms Justice Laffoy.
He said DCD had applied for the interim order on January 20th for two reasons: a newspaper report concerning Mr Osbourne's new post in England which said the Osbournes were moving there and the failure to reply to a letter seeking assurances about money due. The letter had also stated the intention to apply to the court if a reply was not received within eight days.
