Council re-takes possession of former home of 1916 rising leader after alleged trespassers vacate
Last November, the council issued High Court proceedings aimed at restraining 'persons unknown' from trespassing at the property after receiving reports of unauthorised occupation last May.
Today at the High Court, Gavin Mooney SC, for the council, said that an undertaking had been agreed by those allegedly trespassing to vacate the house. He added that, upon inspection, there had been 'slightly more damage' to the property than thought, but that this would not be an issue.
None of the 12 named alleged trespassers were in court this morning before Mr Justice Brian Cregan, who adjourned the matter.
Mr Mooney said the 12 individuals had now given their names to the council and vacated the house.
Advertisement
In February, an application by the council for a court-ordered inspection of the Georgian building was adjourned amid concerns of a 'stand-off' with anyone occupying the premises.
One of the alleged trespassers told the High Court that while some in occupancy 'had no huge objection' to the inspection, others were not sure. 'We deal with things by consensus,' then-occupant Jem Cleaver told the court.
Ms Cleaver told Mr Justice Cregan that she did not want a 'stand off' between any of the occupants and any council staff entering and inspecting the seven-bedroom building.
Dublin City Council was seeking to inspect the premises, which dates from the 1790s, for damages caused either by Storm Éowyn or by the occupants.
Mr Justice Cregan had been told the occupants accepted that they had to vacate the heritage site by May 12 next but opposed an inspection, which they feared would violate their privacy and prejudice them on any council housing list should they give their names to officials.
The council spent €630,000 on purchasing the run-down building in 2018 with plans to transform it into a museum and community centre. The court previously heard works have not begun as a chosen contractor pulled out in 2023, but that the council is 'anxious' to revive its restoration plan.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Pictured: Irishman who has to pay Sky €600,000 over 'dodgy box' operation
This is the Wexford man who is set to pay Sky up to €600,000 in damages and costs over his operation of a 'dodgy box' streaming service. David Dunbar agreed to pay the broadcaster some €480,000 in damages and at least €100,000 in costs when his case was heard at the High Court in Dublin on Tuesday. Mr Dunbar consented to judgment against him after opting not to defend the civil case, brought by Sky UK Limited over his infringement of the broadcaster's copyright. But he declined to comment when the Irish Mirror called to his home in Wexford on Wednesday, a day after the hearing. He told us: 'No comment.' And he added: 'Don't bother coming back here again, under advice from my solicitor. It is still a legal matter ongoing.' Mr Dunbar faces further sanction for being in contempt of court, having breached orders aimed at preserving evidence of his copyright infringement and orders freezing his assets, among other directions. A suite of sanctions are open to the court, including imprisonment. Mr Dunbar, with an address at Manor Crescent, Roxborough Manor, Co Wexford, was previously described by Sky as a 'top-level' copyright infringer who may have earned up to €450,000 a year from operating an illegal streaming service. The broadcaster alleged that Mr Dunbar provided thousands with access to its copyrighted broadcast material since 2018. On Tuesday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey was informed that Mr Dunbar was consenting to various reliefs sought by Sky arising from his copyright infringement. The judge said there was no doubt of Mr Dunbar's copyright infringement, and ordered that he pay €480,000 in damages to Sky. Mr Dunbar must also pay the broadcaster's legal costs, the judge ruled, of about €100,000. The judge also granted various permanent injunctions against Mr Dunbar, including an order restraining him from ever operating an Internet Protocol television service, or IPTV - the technology behind 'dodgy box' services. Mr Justice Sanfey reserved his judgment on an attachment and committal motion moved by Sky over Mr Dunbar's breach of several court orders. David Dunbar pictured with Mirror reporter Michael O'Toole at his home in Wexford on Wednesday. Photo: Jim Campbell The court heard that Mr Dunbar did not comply with various orders granted to Sky aimed at gathering evidence of his wrongdoing. This included a refusal to comply with an Anton Piller order, which allows for entry to private premises for the purposes of seizing evidence. Theo Donnelly BL, appearing for Sky and instructed by Philip Lee LLP, submitted that Mr Dunbar engaged in clear breaches of court orders. He submitted that the court orders were explained to Mr Dunbar in layman's terms by an independent solicitor who called to his house on foot of the Anton Piller order. Despite this, he did not allow the solicitor to enter his premises, and proceeded to destroy evidence of his copyright infringement, among other breaches, Mr Donnelly submitted. Counsel said it was hard to see how Mr Dunbar could have engaged in a more 'clear and knowing' contempt of the court orders. It is Mr Dunbar's case that when the orders were explained to him by his legal representatives, he realised the seriousness of the matter. Following this, he said he sought to comply with the court's orders, the court heard. Sky brought High Court proceedings against Mr Dunbar. Photo: Chris Radburn/PA Wire Darren Lehane SC, for Mr Dunbar and instructed by Dodd Solicitors, said his client was acknowledging his contempt of court. In considering sanction for his contempt, Mr Lehane asked the court to take into account Mr Dunbar's speedy consent to a judgment against him in default of defence. Mr Donnelly said he believed Mr Dunbar's case has not been referred to An Garda Síochána, but said he had not taken specific instruction on the matter. The case returns next month. For more of the latest breaking news from the Irish Mirror check out our homepage by clicking here.
Irish Times
12 hours ago
- Irish Times
On call with the Dublin Fire Brigade
Nikita Hand speaks to the media at the High Court after Conor McGregor loses his appeal over the verdict in the civil rape case. Video: Stephen Conneely
Irish Daily Mirror
20 hours ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
Debunked: Conor McGregor makes series of misleading claims in court rant
Conor McGregor has made a number of misleading claims - after losing his appeal of a civil finding that he raped Nikita Hand. In a lengthy and rambling post on social media platform X, McGregor sensationally stated that he has no intention of paying the legal fees of James Lawrence - who the High court previously heard he referred to his solicitors and admitted paying his bills. In his post McGregor referred to the November High Court case which he lost and the appeal case which he also lost as a 'shake down,' and insisted he didn't say he was paying Lawrence's fees. 'You are out of your f*cking mind if you think I am paying James Lawrence legal costs, folks. Who said I was paying his fees?'I said I didn't know if I was, when the accusers barrister asked me on the stand, as I didn't. (who is paying his own fees I should have asked him at that time) ???' he posted. However in the High Court case itself McGregor was pressed by trial Judge Alexander Owens if he was paying Lawrence's fees or not. In response to cross examination first from Ms Hand's Counsel McGregor stated that he 'possibly' paid James Lawrence legal fees and referred him to them. 'I'm not 100 per cent. I get staggering legal bills.' The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Judge Owens then stated to McGregor that it was a simple question - did he pay Lawrence's bills or not. McGregor responded by saying: 'I believe I did.' In refusing Lawrence costs at the conclusion of the High Court case in November, Judge Owens said both men were acting in "lockstep" in their defence of the action and it would be inappropriate to award costs to Mr Lawrence even though the jury found he did not rape Ms Hand. The Court of Appeal this week refused to allow Lawrence to be paid his costs as they too found that the money would ultimately end up going to McGregor, who was paying his fees. Nikita Hand speaking to the media after attending the Court of Appeal (Image: Collins Photos) McGregor goes on to claim in his new post that he was 'on the stand in a world of fog being accused of a crime I didn't commit, and that I was actually cleared of criminally and exonerated by every witness present, as well as believed twice over by the public prosecutor, but still up on a stand civilly, in absolute shock.' This statement is also misleading - as McGregor was not in fact 'cleared' or 'exonerated.' Gardai did investigate the alleged rape and sent a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). However the DPP decided not to take the case and therefore no criminal charges were levelled against the UFC fighter. This by itself does not mean McGregor was 'cleared' or 'exonerated' of the claims - just that he was not charged or convicted of any criminal offence. However the finding by the civil jury in November that he was liable for assault - whereby the assault in question was the rape that occurred in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford in 2018, means the fighter can hardly claim he was 'exonerated.' The finding of the jury has also now been upheld by the three Judges of the Court of Appeal. McGregor goes on to make claims about why the criminal case did not go ahead - stating that there was plenty of evidence of CCTV footage which he claimed showed Ms Hand 'partying away, messaging away' and leaving and coming back to the hotel 'not a f*cking laughing, dancing, kissing, biting, play fighting. It's some watch. I was home HOURS and this is all going on,' he wrote. All of the footage was played in full and repeatedly re shown to the jury in the civil trial - with them ultimately siding with Ms Hand who stated she was drunk and not in the right state of mind at the time of the footage. Having been shown this footage and heard arguments from both sides they nonetheless sided with her, that she had been raped in the room by McGregor. McGregor goes on to attack Ms Hand in his post by saying: 'How people sleep at night is beyond me. I'm sure they don't. Not soundly anyway, no way. Impossible. To falsely accuse someone of rape and lose, then attempt to ignore that fact/brush it under the rug is truly heinous on another level!' However Ms Hand did not lose her case - she in fact won it, and had it re affirmed this week by three learned Judges of the Court of Appeal. Mr McGregor can continue to claim he did not rape Ms Hand - and it is a fact that he is not convicted of the criminal offence. He has however been found to have raped Ms Hand and is liable for it, by a civil jury. He now claims he 'welcomes' the new case taken by Ms Hand against him and the suddenly withdrawn proposed witnesses, couple Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins. Ms Hand is suing McGregor, Ms O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins for damages for 'malicious abuse of the process of the court.' It comes after McGregor's own Counsel announced at the opening of the appeal earlier this month that they would not be called as witnesses - after admitting that the evidence was not sustainable. Now in his new post McGregor is trying to claim that the evidence of Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins ought to have been heard - despite his own legal team arguing it shouldn't. 'I believed their claim, as portions of it was verified through the response affidavit to it,' he claimed. 'Why these two witnesses were not called, i will never know. It was on the very morning of. They were present and very eager to testify,' he claimed. 'It seemed they were pulled out of fear from my appointed team tbh. For what I don't know. These people said they seen something, let us all hear. If it's legit, great, it sounds very legit to me. If it's not, it's on them.' After the evidence was suddenly withdrawn the Judges of the Court of Appeal made the decision to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), after reading submissions from Ms Hand's legal team about the couple. Ms Hand's Counsel flagged concerns that potential perjury had been committed by the couple - and subornation of perjury by Conor McGregor himself for attempting to introduce the now withdrawn 'evidence.' He now claims he is 'happy this is still ongoing' - despite now being liable for a staggering €2M legal bill he has to pay Nikita Hand - and the remainder of the €250,000 award. Sign up to the Irish Mirror's Courts and Crime newsletter here and get breaking crime updates and news from the courts direct to your inbox.
