We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A JUDGE HAS refused to grant a Dublin solicitor a licence to open a pub in the Temple Bar area, saying there are enough licenced premises in the area.
Judge Karen Fergus said there were enough public houses around 5 Aston Quay to provide for the 130 customers that Aston Hospitality Ltd, of which solicitor Dermot O’Neill is a director, planned to cater for.
Judge Fergus told barrister Kerry-Jane Morgan, counsel for a number of objectors, that her clients which included local residents were entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.
The judge said Mr O’Neill purchased 5 Aston Quay in June 2014 and obtained planning permission to convert the top floor into a one-bedroom apartment where he intended to live. He had leased the first and second floors to a charity.
Judge Fergus said the ground floor and basement area were previously incorporated into Numbers 3 and 4 Aston Quay and operated as a nightclub and bar under a theatre licence.
Publican seven-day licence
Mr O’Neill had reinstated a wall between Numbers 4 and 5, with the intention to open the pub on the ground floor and basement. He had applied to the Circuit Court for a declaratory order which would guarantee him a publican’s seven-day on-licence if the premises was completed in accordance with planning permission.
The full licence would have allowed him to sell beer, wines and spirits once the premises had been renovated.
Judge Fergus said in a reserved judgment that the objectors (one of which is RTÉ Space expert Leo Enright) claimed the new premises were unfit, inconvenient and unsuitable for the needs of residents in the neighbourhood.
They had also claimed that there were enough licensed premises in the area. An Garda Síochána, the Fire Authority and other licensed premises in the area had not objected to the application.
No need for one more
Judge Fergus said there were 13 seven day on-licence premises in the neighbourhood and the creation of one more was unnecessary.
“Of course there are pros and cons of city centre living but the residents have given evidence that their lives are being negatively impacted by the numbers of pubs that are already operating in the area,” the judge said.
Constance Cassidy SC, who appeared with Nicola-Jane Andrews for Aston Hospitality Ltd, had told the court that Mr O’Neill, a solicitor with the Director of Public Prosecutions, had always wanted to open a pub and intended to take a leave of absence if the application was granted.
Judge Fergus refused Aston Hospitality’s application.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A judge with common sense rare indeed I am sure they will get the license on appeal
Buy a home in temple bar then claim they are being inconvenienced by the noise from bars and venues and are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their homes…
Terrible advertisement for himself and his skills as a solicitor if he couldn’t get that argument thrown out of court.
But, but judge I just wanted a quiet life! So a bought/rented a home in a quiet neighbourhood! Really?
His biggest mistake was to claim he was going to live on the top floor (obviously bull).
Thank goodness we have laws that protect the living standards of communities from the greedy money grabbing type of well-off solicitor who would gladly create more noise and disturbance for residents without giving them a second thought.
As someone who lived directly above The Temple Bar for a year, I agree. I knew moving there that it was a loud, entertainment area. It would be like moving to Times Square and complaining that the lights were keeping you awake at night.
Could convert it to be a mini A&E ward.
Solicitors with the DPP can afford to buy buildings in the centre of Dublin.
I blame the vibrant criminal community for making DPP roles such a lucrative career path.
Considering the amout of pubs closing down around the country, I would have assumed one opening and creating jobs would be welcomed.
They ain’t closing down in the centre of Dublin
Someone must of had a tiff in the elite community and had a bad round of golf, it will be granted by a different judge on appeal. A lot of power weilding by ego driven individuals.
Oversupply is grounds for refusal, expect appeal to succeed and rightly so. A judge shouldn’t be able to block trade. The fact that he is right about oversupply is not moot.
There’s s moot loose about the hoose
The judge was a woman
“A judge shouldn’t be able to block trade”. Well in that case I will just open a bar in the ground floor of my house and to hell with the neighbours… There’s a reason why we have planning regulations dummy.
Right or wrong .. Where does a judge get the power to decide social policy???
Tourists from all over the world flock to Temple Bar to enjoy the pubs and restaurants. It’s getting increasingly popular. Of course there’s a need for new bars. The existing ones are packed full and overcharging.
Who’s this clown Leo Enright? And why is he wasting his time on an issue like this? Our licence fee shouldnt be used for his wages if this is the sort of rubbish he gets up too.
He should of got the licence..
RTE have a space expert ? What’s the point of that nobody goes to space anymore
If anyone actually thinks the objector weren’t the other pubs in the area they are very gullible.
Well done to the residents, a victory for the little guy.
5 Aston Quay is already a pub called Gypsy Rose
The Gypsy Rose used to be located at no 5 and no 4 being Blu Cafe joined to the main bar with the basement bar comprised of the basements of 3,4 and 5, now the Gypsy Rose is located at no 4 and and only 3 and 4 making up the basement bar. This is because this solicitor bought the building and wouldn’t renew their lease forcing the change. It caused a reduction in staff as less bar staff was and the cafe staff weren’t needed as no more cafe.
Is the judge basing this on his knowledge of the market or his backwards morals?
Can the solicitor argue, that there is enough stupid laws and choose not to follow the judges rule?
The rip-off merchants of temple bar’s bar cartel have won again , mega Monopoly :1 competition/opposition :0
have your say