Two companies challenging new parking restrictions at the International Financial Services Centre yesterday secured court orders preventing their customers from being interfered with while parking in the centre's public areas.
The interlocutory injunctions were granted by Mr Justice Shanley to Redfont Ltd, of Dawson Street, Dublin, which operates the IFSC's Harbourmaster Bar and restaurant, and Wrights Fisherman's Wharf Ltd, West Pier, Howth, which operates a seafood restaurant adjoining the Harbourmaster Bar.
Under the orders' terms, Customs House Dock Management Ltd, Wellington Road, Dublin, the company responsible for managing the IFSC, and Hardwicke Property Management Ltd, of Wellington Road, Dublin, a management company retained by the first defendant, are restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to pass, set down and repass over the IFSC's public areas.
The defendants are also restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and their agents or visitors to park on the centre's public areas.
The orders are to continue pending the hearing of legal proceedings taken by Redfont and Wrights challenging new parking regulations introduced at the centre on January 21st last.
Both companies claimed their patrons could park their cars on the public areas within the IFSC up to then and allege the new regulations have had serious adverse effects on their businesses.
Mr Justice Shanley refused an application on behalf of the defendants for a stay on the injunctions in the event of an appeal.
In his judgment granting the injunctions, the judge said he was satisfied the plaintiffs had established there was a serious issue to be tried in the matter and that was whether, on a true construction of the express grants of rights of way set out in the plaintiffs' subleases, there was an ancillary right to park cars which was being interfered with.
Another issue was whether the defendants were interfering with the plaintiffs' rights to pass and repass over the public areas of the IFSC.
There was an arguable case that, in the parking regulations of January last, the defendants had interfered in an unlawful and impermissible way with the plaintiffs' rights of way and other ancillary rights.