THE High Court has ordered the arrest and jailing for contempt of a number of people remaining in buildings in Grangegorman, Dublin, which a bank-appointed receiver is trying to take over.
NAMA-appointed receiver Luke Charleton secured orders for the jailing of a named man and the arrest of all other unidentified persons remaining in occupation of properties.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan ordered that Stephen Bedford be jailed for 14 days or until such time as he purges his contempt of the court's order which directed all those living at the properties to leave there by May 4.
The judge said it appeared some 20 other people were also residing at the properties in breach of the court order.
He was issuing a warrant directing they be arrested by gardai and brought before the court to explain why they should not be also jailed.
An agent for Mr Charleton claims up to 50 people were seen entering and exiting the properties at Lower Grangegorman and North Brunswick Street despite the judge's order of last March.
Mr Charleton wants to sell the properties to go towards repayment of a debt of €21.9m owed by businessman Paschal Conroy. An appeal which was lodged against the court order was struck out due to non-attendance of the appellants, the court heard.
The appellants complained the matter was struck out before 10.30am last Wednesday, when one aspect of the matter was listed for mention, and told Mr Justice Gilligan it was intended to seek reinstatement of the appeal.
Two men, Stephen Bedford and Gréum Ná Hearadh, were in court on May 15 to oppose the receiver's application.
Mr Bedford asked for more time to deal with the matter and to seek to reinstate the appeal. There was no evidence of contempt of the court orders, he argued.
In documents read by Mr Bedford, it was alleged there was no basis for the court order to have been made.
It was also claimed the property had been damaged by actions of staff of security groups and occupants of the properties had health and safety concerns.
It was also alleged an "illegal, forced" eviction was attempted prior to the court hearing and the receiver refused to negotiate with the "residents".