The owners and operators of a Co Meath hotel and wedding venue have claimed before the High Court that their business is being severely and deliberately disrupted by a neighbour using a siren or an airhorn during the night.
Lefgem Limited and Wave Prime Limited, which own and operate the four-star Johnstown Estate hotel, have secured a temporary injunction restraining three people who claim they own three nearby luxury holiday lodges from generating loud noise near the venue.
The plaintiff companies, which are entities of businessman Barry English and employ more than 300 people, claim the hotel’s business has been severely disputed by the loud siren noises that are set to go off for several hours at night.
The disruption, it is claimed, is part of an ongoing dispute between the plaintiffs and the three defendants, David Godwin of Boroimhe Ash, Swords, Co Dublin, Peter Wilson C/o Lodge 416, The Johnson Estate, Enfield Co Meath and Martin Kennedy Lorcan Villas, Santry Dublin.
At the High Court on Friday, Bernard Dunleavy SC, for the plaintiffs, said his clients acquired the hotel from a receiver in 2015.
Counsel said lodges, divided into 40 units, were built near the hotel as part of the overall development at Johnstown. He said his clients acquired more than 30 of the lodges, which are used to accommodate guests and employees.
However, some of the lodges were acquired by others.
The three defendants, the court heard, claim they each bought one of the other lodges in online auctions.
Counsel said it is his clients’ case they had no legal obligation to continue to supply electricity and water to any of the lodges not owned by the hotel and they cut off the water and electricity supply.
The plaintiffs claim the lodges do not connect directly to services provided by the local council.
Counsel said that this resulted in a series of events between his clients and the defendants. It is alleged that the most recent development in the dispute commenced early this year when Mr Godwin set off an airhorn late at night on several occasions.
It is alleged he also began to use a siren in February that sounds like an industrial steam whistle late at night.
The siren is powered by a generator that is also loud and the cause of significant disruption to the hotel and has damaged its business reputation, it is claimed.
For several months, the siren was allegedly used intermittently and in short bursts.
However, it is claimed that in recent weeks Mr Godwin has escalated its use, allowing it to sound for six hours in the night.
Counsel said it appears the increased use is linked to the recent erection of billboards on the roof of the lodge Mr Godwin claims he owns. It appears to personally target Mr English.
Counsel said his client is particularly concerned about the effect the noise will have on two weddings due to be held at the hotel this weekend.
Other issues between the parties include an alleged attempt by the defendants to restore electricity to the lodges by breaking into the main service yard of the hotel, which resulted in gardaí being called, counsel said.
Mr Dunleavy said the lodges were daubed with graffiti stating: “water is a human right”, “unprovoked” and “we have children”.
Wooden hoarding the hotel placed around its premises was cut down, he added.
The plaintiffs claim they are willing to allow the ESB access to the lodges to reconnect them if their expenses are covered. However, that offer was not taken up and the ESB has not carried out such works, it is claimed.
The court heard there had been other issues between the parties including a planning row over the use of sea containers on the grounds for storage, the removal of a portable water tank and the installation of CCTV cameras.
After considering the plaintiffs’ submissions, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore was satisfied on the evidence before him to temporarily restrain the noise.
The injunction restrains the defendants from using a siren, airhorn, alarm or power generators for the purpose of generating loud noise near the hotel.
The defendants were not represented or notified of the application, which will return to court next week.