A south Dublin businessman has apologised before the High Court for being in contempt of court orders not to interfere with the receivership of a property owned by him, writes Ann O’Loughlin.
The apology was offered by Gerry Ward, Mount Eagle Green, Leopardstown Heights, Dublin 18 before Ms Justice Carmel Stewart today.
Receiver Simon Coyle brought a motion seeking Mr Ward's attachment and committal to prison over the businessman's refusal to comply with the order in relation to a property located at Cedar Brook Avenue, Cherry Orchard, Dublin 10.
However Mr Ward has brought proceedings where he opposes the validity of the receiver's appointment.
The Judge had previously made an order directing the Garda Siochana to attach Mr Ward and bring him before the court to answer his contempt.
Today when the case returned before the court Declan Wade Bl for Mr Coyle told Ms Justice Stewart Mr Ward had since furnished a sworn statement to the court.
While some of the contents of the statement were unhelpful counsel said Mr Ward had offered what his client deemed to be an apology.
Ms Justice Stewart said Mr Ward had offered an apology in his statement, and considered the application seeking Mr Ward's attachment and committal to be at an end.
Mr Colye, the judge said, was entitled to the legal costs of this particular application from Mr Ward which had been before the courts on several occasions.
Representing himself Mr Ward, who said the proceedings concerning the receivership were "not over by a long shot," had asked that costs be reserved pending the final outcome of the dispute.
Mr Coyle was appointed receiver by Bank of Ireland in 2015, which Mr Ward acquired with a mortgage from ICS Building Society in 2007.
In 2016 Mr Coyle obtained orders from the High Court preventing Mr Ward from dealing with, occupying, trespassing and interfering with the Cherry Orchard property and the receivership.
The receiver was unable to gain possession of the property, resulting in Mr Coyle bringing proceedings alleging contempt of the court against Mr Ward.
Proceedings had also brought against the occupier of the property, who last month left the premises.
That action was discontinued after the High Court accepted the occupant was an innocent party in the matter.