Judge holds businessman in contempt for contacting couple over garage storing exotic pets

A judge has found a businessman in contempt of court for “deliberately and flagrantly” breaching orders not to communicate with a couple over a disputed garage used to store an alligator and other exotic pets.

Mr Justice David Nolan on Wednesday made the finding in respect of Noel Martin snr, who the judge said had not only breached a court order but also his own undertaking that he would not contact the other parties.

The ruling was made in proceedings brought by Alan O’Neill and his partner June Finnegan against Drumgoan Developments Limited and its alleged operators, Mr Martin snr and his son Darren Martin. The case concerns the ownership of garage, which the defendants claimed was owned by Drumgoan.

The garage is located adjacent to the couple’s home at Crann Nua, Edenderry Road, Portarlington, Co Laois.

The High Court, with the consent of the parties, previously declared that the couple own the garage, and it is currently in the process of being registered in their name by Tailte Éireann.

When the case first came before the court the couple secured orders including an injunction restraining the defendants, who are alleged to have threatened and intimidated them, from communicating directly with the plaintiffs.

Mr Martin snr is alleged to have breached that order on two occasions, and was made the subject of contempt-of-court proceedings.

He subsequently apologised to the court, said the matter was a mistake and agreed not to contact the plaintiffs again.

The judge said Mr Martin snr had contacted the plaintiffs by WhatsApp, where it is alleged he had threatened them.

The judge said the tone of the messages, which reflected badly on Mr Martin snr, was aggressive, threatening and contained allegations that the animals the couple kept in the garage were dangerous.

The messages sent after the injunction was made, the judge added, were rude and threatening, and stated that couple would be reported to various authorities over the “keeping of dangerous unlicensed animals”.

The judge said that while Mr Martin snr had “adopted a sensible approach of accepting he had breached the order”, there could be “no doubt whatsoever” his breach was “flagrant and deliberate”.

The judge said it appeared Mr Martin snr did not really believe he did anything wrong, and it was not clear to the court whether he fully understood his position.

In considering what sanction to impose, the court was conscious that jailing him “would place a financial burden on the State” and should be the option of “last resort”.

Submissions from Mr Martin snr’s lawyers seeking leniency were noted by the judge.

The judge said he was adjourning the matter to a date in October to see how Mr Martin snr gets on over the next three months.

The judge said he had a concern that when this aspect of the case ends, Mr Martin snr might “revert to the type of bullying and coercive behaviour which he engaged in to date, not just with the parties involved in the case, but also with other homeowners on the housing estate”.

Mr Justice Nolan warned that if there was “any further intimidatory behaviour”, he would have “no hesitation” in sending Mr Martin snr to jail.

Mr Martin snr must pay both sides’ legal costs incurred in the contempt proceedings.

The couple’s claim for damages against all of the defendants remains live before the court.

In their action, the couple claim the defendants asserted ownership of the garage that the plaintiffs purchased along with their home, which were both built by Drumgoan, in 2005.

However, the garage was not properly conveyed to them due to an oversight.

The couple say they were unaware of this issue until earlier this year, when they claim the defendants engaged in a “land grab” and made demands for payment from them.

They also claimed the garage was damaged by agents of the defendants using a JCB.

They claimed Mr Martin snr sent them threatening communications, including messages allegedly designed to intimidate.

In his ruling, the judge said that what was “striking” about all of this was “the belligerent tone” taken by Mr Martin snr over a property dispute.

The judge said it was “personal, vindictive, and designed to cause the maximum amount of pain, upset and disturbance to the plaintiffs”.

Mr Martin snr apologised over what he said was “a genuine mistake” and “a misunderstanding”, and rejected claims he was involved in a land grab.