Meath residents sued by Glenveagh denied adjournment to secure legal representation

Two Co Meath residents accused of serially objecting to planning applications by housing giant Glenveagh look likely to face the company’s €8 million claim without legal representation after the High Court again refused their request to delay the hearing scheduled for next month.
Denise Leavy and Pat Lynch asked Mr Justice Richard Humphreys to grant them extra time so they can engage lawyers to help them fight Glenveagh’s action alleging they have engaged in a campaign of “tortious interference” with its business interests.
The construction firm claims they used “fictitious aliases” to make submissions and appeals “highly targeted” at its projects in an attempted “shake-down” for extortion.
The pair, who both have addresses in Batterstown, Proudstown, strongly deny the allegations against them.
On Monday Ms Leavy, a retired bank official, said they have contacted 22 legal firms since their previous solicitors, FP Logue, ceased representing them in July. Six have conflicts of interest, while eight are constrained or unavailable over the dates of their two-week hearing, she said.
Ms Leavy added that two of the firms indicated they would be happy to represent them if the trial is delayed beyond the November 26th date.
“We need a chance to fight this case,” she said, adding that Glenveagh has “unlimited resources for expensive lawyers”.
Mr Lynch, an insurance consultant, said they are “seriously restricted” in their ability to meet the case and there was “no gameplay” in seeking a rescheduling.
Glenveagh’s senior counsel, Niall Handy, instructed by solicitors AMOSS, previously told the court the developer is concerned the delay requests are part of a tactic.
On Monday he opposed the adjournment application, saying it would cause considerable prejudice to his client.
Mr Handy said the defendants continued up until June of this year to lodge submissions on Glenveagh planning applications. Their contention that they are being “railroaded” into a trial is not accurate, he said, adding that there is no automatic right to legal representation.
Mr Justice Humphreys said he sympathised with the defendants but there was no legal basis for acceding to their request. The court’s diary is already filled, so there is no possibility of any adjournment being for a short period, he said.
Last April, the judge rejected an application from Mr Lynch and Ms Leavy seeking to have the case thrown out at an early stage because, they say, it amounts to abusive strategic litigation against public participation (Slapp).
The judge said the construction firm’s case raises “complex issues” and requires further investigation by way of a full High Court trial, when disputes over factual (rather than legal) claims can be teased out.
The defendants were at that point represented by solicitors and a junior and senior barrister.
Glenveagh denies its case is Slapp or designed to intimidate.
The developer alleges the pair unlawfully abused the statutory planning process to interfere with its business, with the “predominant purpose of leveraging an improved bargain” for Mr Lynch in his bid to obtain better terms in selling 16 acres of his land to Glenveagh.