Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PEOPLE OCCUPYING A former Dublin city centre guesthouse have been given 14 days to vacate the premises.
At the High Court today Mr Justice Paul Gilligan granted the owners of the property, formerly known as Neary’s Hotel at Parnell Street, an injunction requiring those in occupation to leave and cease trespassing at the site.
The property has been used as a vegan café and social club called the Barricade Inn since March of last year, the court heard.
It also hosted fundraising events, educational classes and even a bike repair workshop.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the property’s owners sought the injunction on the grounds it is an extremely dangerous and unsafe condition.
The case was brought against a number of unknown persons by Mary Bergin, executrix of the estate of the owner of the guesthouse, Ellen McGuill, who died in 2002. It was also brought by a company called Vandelure Ltd which holds the freehold interest in the property.
The property had been vacant for many years after Mrs McGuill’s death, and is current up for sale.
The matter first came before the High Courts in October.
Lawyers representing the only person to appear before the court to answer the injunction application, Mr James Cleaver, had raising an issue concerning the directors of Vandelure, which at the time the proceedings were launched was claimed had no living directors, and its ability to seek the injunction.
Lawyers Ms Bergin and Vandelure said the late Mrs McGuill was a shareholder in the company and Ms Bergin, as executrix, is also a member of the company.
The court had previously adjourned the matter to allow the matter concerning the company be addressed.
When the matter returned before the Court it was informed the company had rectified the situation, and the application for an injunction could proceed. Following an EGM two new directors have been appointed.
Following discussions between the parties Edward Walsh Bl for Mr Cleaver said his client was consenting to the injunction being made against him, on terms including there would be a two week stay and that no costs order be made against him.
In his ruling Mr Justice Gilligan said he was satisfied from the evidence put before the court the owners were entitled to the injunction, pending the full hearing of the matter.
The injunction compels Mr Cleaver and all others who have knowledge of the orders to vacate and hand over possession of the premises and remove their belongings and any items stored there.
The injunction also prohibits the defendants from re-entering the premises until the full action has been heard. The Judge, noting that Mr Cleaver had consented to the orders, said he was putting a stay on the order of 14 days, which would allow the occupants time to leave the premises.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Get them out, now. That is private property. Squatters are thieves just like any other, they might as well be putting their hand in your pocket to rob you.
^^This^^…Just because the owner of something isn’t using it, you do not have the right to appropriate it as your own… And why is nobody being charged with trespass..
Cal look up squatters law it quiet interesting. Pat Kenny tried to use it to claim a portion of his neighbours land he had being using to grow flowers. If a person doesent use land or property for 12 yrs and their is no agreement in place then the person who has been using it has a legal right to it. The idea of the law is that people use it or loose it.
Rasputin, the owner is contributing zero to the economy by leaving a vacent site in the city centre, his refusal to do the place up costs the taxpayers in the end, tell me how much in rates the owners have paid since they decided to abscond, I for one am not happy that land owners can just leave derelict sites Willy nilly to rot away. The council need to come down hard on these wasters, and your wrong about the owner not using something and appropriating as your own, case in point, Irish water have stolen our nations resources for themselves and profit.
If the law says what you says it does then it needs to be changed. Land that is not used should perhaps be subject to a levy, i would be supportive of this in the case of property developers sitting on land in the city centre while there’s a desperate need for housing…but squatters? Not a chance. OUT!
Cupid Stunt, I am sure that if you inherit a property in the future, possibly from a parent or family member on death, you will have plenty of funds available and there won’t be any other issues such as disputes etc holding you up from renovating and utilizing that property. Sure if you don’t I’m sure you would only love to see squatters taking over the “unused” property and doing whatever they want with it.
I would not be so quick to judge as there can be any number of reasons why someone who inherited a property may not be in a position to do anything with it, this does not mean that anyone has the right to just use it as they see fit free of charge, leaving any liability to the rightful owner.
Cal, the amount of derelict sites littered around the country is a scandal, if I dumped a car in the street for a few months I’d be fined but if I left an entire hotel to fall to rack and ruin that’s grand, what’s the difference, people on here harping about treat people the same blah blah blah when obviously the hotel owners are being treated differently than the rest of us, does the money to secure these sites just fall out of the sky, no it comes directly from your pocket.at least the squatters have made some use out of it, it may not be exactly what you like but then that’s life isn’t it.
Micklington, why aren’t the owners of these properties being treated the same as distressed mortgage holders and brought before the courts and having the sheriff and his thugs smashing down their doors along with the garda, does the state’s compassion only extend itself to the owners of vacent sites.
Why would they be treated as distressed mortgage holders? They inherited the property after a death, same as a lot of individuals in this country. Probate can take a long time to come through, especially when there are several interested parties.
Either way the premises is currently up for sale, so who is to say that this hasn’t been ordered by a bank or a sheriff?? These squatters are devaluing the property, I cannot imagine any potential buyer being over the moon and willing to pay full price for a building inhabited by squatters. Not to mention any liability will fall on the owners, not the squatters.
So why wouldn’t the rightful owners seek them to be evicted??? Tell you what, why don’t you buy the property at the asking price and let the squatters stay there rent free??
Micklington, the place was handled over in 2002. And according to the author another company own it, so it does not seem to be an old lady being taken advantage of, and anyway why are you being so compassionate to these hotel owners, if there bust it’s probably because the prices they charge are extortion, they are taking advantage of the system that surprise surprise is run by a dail full of landlords.
There should be a time limit on how long buildings in the city can be left empty. After which a compulsory sale order. We have far too many derelict buildings. And squatting is not stealing – they’ve been asked to leave and they will; what’s the problem, at least it was being put to use.
Riplington if a person inherits something like property or land and they dont have money to do it up or renovate it they have the choice to sell it or lease it as long as their is an agreement in place a person cant claim squatters rights. However if someone inherits something and does not ever attempt to do antything with it for 12 or more years but let it rot, well id prefer to see someone get some use out of it, especially in the city centre. There are thousands of derilict houses up and down the country rotting away and it really sad to see.
Cupid, where did I mention that this was a little old lady being taken advantage of? I stated that there could have been other mitigating factors interfering with the sale/usage of this property beyond what we are reading here. Take for example the fact that the company had no living directors to execute any decision etc? The article does not state that they are “bust” due to any charges etc? In fact, any mortgage protection policy should have paid off any funds owed on the property.
It seems this company merely seemed to fail due to deaths of directors? So yes, I have compassion for people who have done no wrong. All that has happened is they have inherited a property due to death, there have obviously been issues surrounding the probate etc.
This does not change the fact that it is up for sale now, and these squatters are devaluing and dissuading any potential buyers, simply by being there. Like I have said, I am sure that if you inherited a property you would be more than happy to have squatters on site rent free when you are trying to sell? Answer me that?
You don’t know that the owner has abandoned this property; maybe ownership is tied up ib probate or legal issues. If that is the case then it would be ridiculous to take action against the owner (although I suspect that our lawyers are quite capable of contradicting themselves, if the price is right). Otherwise I agree that people should not be allowed to abandon property such that taxpayers have to foot the bill.
Micklington, I find it strange that you seem to be so compassionate towards the directors and company and the unnamed individuals behind this company, I don’t get it, a derelict hotel has been left to rot since 2002 without a thing being done to enhance its exterior or make it safe, the injunction is being made on what I believe to be the pretext that the building is unsafe, are we to believe that it’s due to some sort of a social and humanitarian grounds I.e. the safety of the public that this injunction is being granted. What exactly have the owners been doing for the last 14 years? I believe the council to also be at fault for allowing this to happen, a levy of some sort and an ultimatum should be given on the owners of sites like this.I’m sure that would help to speed things up.
Know the type. Vegans.
Malnourished tw@ts
If people think squatters are the enemy then we seriously need a rethink. We are obsessed with private ownership in this country. Cork city for example has numerous old Georgian houses vacant in the city centre for years boarded up. They are decaying and make parts of the city look terrible. Temple bar was another district neglected by private interests, the “arty vegan types” saw an opportunity and actually brought some life to a previously no go zone, private interests didn’t mind piggy-backing on that “regeneration”
Grow up
Hit mummy and daddy with a few month’s back rent. That will take the smoke out of their bong.
I guess it’s the right of the owners to want them out but it sounds like quite a creative use of an empty building, shame if they have to move out
There’s no guess!! If the owners want them out they should be taken out immediately by the gardai for trespassing. These are pure hand out merchants just looking for a freebie. There is nothing creative about appropriating property that isn’t yours and as a further insult paying no tax, insurance etc. Leeches.
Cholly, I’m totally amazed at the bizarre statements you come out with, what would you consider the bailed out banks 64billion worth of taxpayers money to be, is that a freebie. They stole our pension fund and your kids futures. Is that ok by you? Jesus to be giving out about some kids living in a derelict house while being totally ok with banking fraud is weird.
They are in a city centre building not safe to be in!,not a field in the middle of nowhere, they should have been fu€ked out ages ago regardless off their sexuality, race, gender or any other issue they might have!
Dirty Dirty spongers the f#@king lot of them. They hide behind a mask of self righteousness when in actual fact they are miserable, mean penny pinchers with very few real morals except where can they live and pay for nothing. The lot of them probably still have their communion money
I’m not sure if you have ever been in a squat but it also often helps give people, ostracized from their families a place to stay, e.g. trans people not accepted by family. Housing lists are only becoming higher these days as you know & with less houses for more people, they need a place to stay so if it ends up being an unused building & they’re harming nobody & educating others, there is no harm & some benefit.
If it were travellers on the site they would have been baton charged months ago!
Stephen – really? There are travellers throughout the country that have been illegally on sites for years and have not been moved on.
Bollox they would… They’d be given every support possible regardless of the condition they left the place in…
Not so. Quiet the opposite in fact. In a case only today it was reported that prior to travellers being evicted from an illegal halting site, the council had offered to find them alternative accommodation in the private sector. This was before they were evicted. It even put some up in local B&B’s and they remain there.
Do you seriously think the council will offer these squatters alternative digs? Or a B&B? That’s your double standard right there.
Exactly ! why do travellers get offered accommodation elsewhere and these guys don’t ?
And if something did happen which injures them while they are there I wouldnt be able to count to five before they were queuing up to sue.
I was hoping this article referred to the current occupants of the Dail/Seanad.
When is NAMA going to release its vulture accommodation stock pile that we all own? The best parties in London were always in squats.
NAMA????? It is being reported today that NAMA has sold 442 vacant apartments for 500,000 euro. An international property company has sold the same apartments on for 83 MILLION euro!!!!! Even if they sold them to the homeless families here for say 50,000 a piece, that would have brought in 22 MILLION, and done something for the homeless families.
There is something seriously wrong going on in NAMA, or this is deliberate policy. NAMA, like the government is not working on our behalf at all.
have your say