Court Denies Stay to Businessman in Exotic Pets Dispute

A businessman has been denied a stay on a ruling regarding the ownership of a garage where a couple kept exotic pets, including a female caiman. The Court of Appeal (CoA) declined the request from Noel Martin snr to pause the decision while he seeks an appeal at the Supreme Court. The CoA’s ruling follows a prior judgment in which the High Court affirmed that Alan O’Neill and June Finnegan are the rightful owners of the garage in question.

The conflict arose on February 21, 2024, when Mr. O’Neill reported hearing loud hammering from the adjacent garage. Upon investigation, he discovered two men damaging the garage walls with power tools. A third man, holding a document claiming ownership by Drumgoan, approached Mr. O’Neill, while a fourth arrived in a JCB digger and threatened to demolish the garage wall. Despite Mr. O’Neill’s warning about the animals inside, the digger was driven through the structure, leading to significant damage.

Following this incident, the couple secured a High Court injunction to prevent further interference from Martin snr, his son Darren, and Drumgoan Developments Ltd. The High Court later determined that Martin snr had violated court orders by sending threatening messages to the couple, resulting in a judgment that imposed full legal costs against him and his associates.

In the High Court’s decision, delivered in May 2024, it was established that O’Neill and Finnegan owned the garage based on their purchase agreements. The CoA noted that the original housing estate where they reside was constructed by Drumgoan, which had failed to properly convey ownership of the garage land to the homeowners. As of late 2023, Drumgoan remained the registered owner of these garages, and O’Neill alleged that Martin snr and his company had been unlawfully claiming additional plots of land from other residents.

In his appeal, Martin snr argued that the High Court had erred in its ruling. However, the CoA dismissed his claims last July, confirming the order for costs against him. On Tuesday, the court reiterated its position and rejected Martin snr’s application for a stay pending a potential further appeal.

CoA Justice Brian O’Moore highlighted that the only penalty faced by Martin snr and his associates was an order for costs. This decision underscores the court’s view that the appellants had not succeeded in their claims, further solidifying the ownership of O’Neill and Finnegan over the disputed garage.

As the legal proceedings continue, the couple remains in a precarious position, navigating the complexities of property ownership and the implications of their exotic pet ownership amidst ongoing disputes.