Man takes harassment case against builder
Martin Sweeney has also claimed that the builder, Daniel Lannon, has engaged the services of the debt collection agency run by the Dublin criminal Martin “The Viper” Foley as part of his attempt to be paid.
Mr Sweeney, who denies he owes Mr Lannon money for works allegedly done three years ago, has claimed that Mr Lannon has recently engaged in tactics, including sending him text messages accusing him of lying and stealing, made phone calls to his home, place of work and to his children’s school, and has called to his home.
He claims the builder’s actions have blackened his reputation, and have caused stress and distress to him and his family.
Yesterday, the president of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns made various interim orders against Mr Lannon, including that he not harass Mr Sweeney and his family, that he not trespass on Mr Sweeney’s property, and that he not contact Mr Sweeney or members of his family.
The court further prohibited Mr Lannon, or his agents, from watching or besetting Mr Sweeney’s home or the school attended by his children. The orders were granted on an ex-parte basis, where only one party was present. The case will come before the court again next week.
Seeking the injunction, lawyers for Mr Sweeney, of Woodley Park, Stillorgan, Dublin, told the court the dispute dates back to 2009 when it is alleged that Mr Sweeney did not pay Mr Lannon, of Burnell Square, Malahide Road, for works done at two Dublin properties between August 2008 and April 2009. High Court proceedings were brought arising out of that dispute.
In an affidavit, Mr Sweeney said he recently received an email from Mr Lannon stating he was no longer pursuing Mr Sweeney through the courts but through a debt collection agency.
Mr Sweeney said last month an agent of Viper Debt Recovery and Repossession Services called to his house and gave him a letter, signed by Martin Foley, which said it now acted for Mr Lannon and sought payment for outstanding debts of almost €250,000.
Mr Sweeney also said in another recent incident, Mr Lannon called to his home, rang the doorbell and asked to speak with him. Gardaí were called and spoke to Mr Lannon.
He also said on another occasion Mr Lannon rang him and told him he was at the school attended by Mr Sweeney’s children, close to where Mr Sweeney’s wife works.
Mr Sweeney said shortly afterwards his wife rang him to say that someone called Lannon had called the school, spoke to the principal and had asked that his name and phone number be passed on to Mrs Sweeney.
Mr Sweeney says that the proper forum for the dispute is the High Court, and that Mr Lannon’s behaviour amounts to harassment and an abuse of process.



