Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lissadell Costs

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    John_Rambo wrote: »

    Why should people be stopped buying properties going for market price, who should stop them? The Gardai? Properties like this change hands all the time.

    I never said or suggested people should be stopped from buying properties for market price. If 2 barristers can afford to spend 13 million buying and maintaining a holiday home that is nothing out of the ordinary, barristers do that all the time in France, Spain, England, Scotland, Africa lol.

    What annoyed the locals there and the county council was the way the new owners closed rights of way ...roads which had been used for many generations.

    As other posters said Sir joceylyns was liked by one and all...as were his family. Is'nt it ironic that people give out - well have historically given out- about the Anglo Irish, yet here is a family which were very good to the locals and allowed rights of way etc on certain roads through the estate. The government over the years took land - most of their land - and assets away, with the land commission and inheritance taxes, and they end up with little or no income. Then new purchasers come along - purchasers who are where they are because of the legal system in this country- and they close rights of way and cause a legal wrangle with the council which costs the council in legal fees twice what the estate cost. Ha! Karma how are ye. Come back Anglo Irish, all is forgiven , ye ran the place better.


  • Options
    #93
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,529 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    maryishere wrote: »
    barristers do that all the time in France, Spain, England, Scotland, Africa lol.

    Lol? Lawyers, barristers, legal eagles etc.. buy pretty plush properties worth millions all over the civilised world, including France, Spain, England and Africa. Do you not know that they are extremely well paid and the better ones can pretty much demand what they want from the extremely rich corporations and people the represent?
    maryishere wrote: »
    Come back Anglo Irish, all is forgiven , ye ran the place better.

    Mentioning Anglo Irish Bank to bolster thanks is weak. It has nothing to do with the costs.


  • Options
    #94
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Do you not know that they are extremely well paid


    Did not the troika suggest legal fees in this country were way out of line?

    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Mentioning Anglo Irish Bank to bolster thanks is weak. It has nothing to do with the costs.

    Nobody mentioned Anglo Irish bank. The owners of many old estate houses around Ireland were loosely termed "Anglo Irish" because that was their background, but they had no more connection to Anglo Irish Bank than you or me. None of the Anglo Irish blocked rights of way as far as I know or ended up in a legal wrangle which cost the taxpayer 7 million.


  • Options
    #95
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    maryishere wrote: »
    ...
    What annoyed the locals there and the county council was the way the new owners closed rights of way ...roads which had been used for many generations.
    ...
    The essence of the Supreme Court judgement is that they didn't close rights of way: they closed off private property.


  • Options
    #96
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    The essence of the Supreme Court judgement is that they didn't close rights of way: they closed off private property.
    Correct. And the essence of the High Court judgement is that they did close rights of way. And according to people who lived in the area and who visited the area over generations they travelled the road as a right of way, and there was never any obstruction.

    The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    maryishere wrote: »

    The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.

    So now you accusing the Judges of the Supreme Court of being institutionally corrupt!
    The only word to describe that disgusting claim is pathetic!


  • Options
    #98
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    So now you accusing the Judges of the Supreme Court of being institutionally corrupt!

    I did not actually. The thought would never have entered my head, m'lord. The judges in the supreme court are entitled to their view, just as those judges in the high court and the people who live in the area and who visited the area over generations are also entitled to their views.


  • Options
    #99
    slingshot88
    Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭slingshot88


    Sure everyone knows there is no corruption in ireland!


  • Options
    #100
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    maryishere wrote: »
    ...
    The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.
    There is a similar possibility that they know High Court judges, and the High Court ruled against them.


  • Options
    #101
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,559 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    There is a similar possibility that they know High Court judges, and the High Court ruled against them.
    Easier to sell that conspiracy too, only one judge to be "got at" in the High Court. However to make 5 Supreme Court judges deliver a unanimous judgment, we're through the looking glass here people.

    Can we have more folksy tales of gentle country folk tugging the forelock at the owner of the Big House, ambling down Fake Nostalgia Avenue to the beach, wise old legal philosopher's on barstools and the rantings of the Fast Show's Rowley Birkin QC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Plazaman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭Plazaman


    maryishere wrote: »
    Correct. And the essence of the High Court judgement is that they did close rights of way. And according to people who lived in the area and who visited the area over generations they travelled the road as a right of way, and there was never any obstruction.

    The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.

    I think you're just going down the road of conspiracy theories here now.

    Don't know if you read the full judgement (embedded HERE in Indo article), but it is quite a lenghty document that goes into the legalities that makes a right of way a right of way. Indepth research into maps going back to the 1800's and all laws regarding rights of way were researched so I don't think this was thrown together because somebody knew somebody. Also, "But we always used to walk here", is not a valid legal arguement.

    I go back to the years after 2005 when the Cassidy/Walsh family took over the estate and let the status quo continue allowing people to walk through the grounds. If you want to point fingers, point them straight at Joe Leonard (who says he is not going for re-election, surprise surprise) and Sligo County Council whose bully boy tactics spectacularly backfired.


  • Options
    #103
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Stavros Murphy wrote: »
    Cast aside the sums involved and bring it down to fundamentals. You buy a house in a nice street, you spend a fortune(to you) renovating it, putting down a nice patio and laying fresh turf on the lawn. Then, one sunny day, yourself and the Missus and kids are out in your speedos, having a Bud and the barbies sizzling, enjoying your new garden.

    Out of nowhere, Reginald McWalkingboots and his burd Ivanna Cyclemore dander through the hedge and potter across your back garden, followed by Anto and his mate Whacker, who give ye a cheery wave and giggle at your missus' hairy legs.


    You ask them wtf they think they are doing, and they cheerily reply that this is a right of way and they've been walking through this garden for years pal, now fcuk off, there's a good lad. How chuffed would you be and how long before you headed into the premises of Messrs Stalk-Grunge and Shattur for their opinion on what can be done to get these fcukers out of your garden?.

    That, in a nutshell.


    well said and so true


  • Options
    #104
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Plazaman wrote: »
    I think you're just going down the road of conspiracy theories here now.

    No peope are not whispering about conspiracy theories, there is no corruption in Ireland. Certainly no nod nod wink wink between the top barristers and judges. The high court found against the new owners of Lissadell.

    To get back to costs though, do you not agree with the Troika re legal costs? After all, none of the Anglo Irish owners of estates blocked rights of way as far as I know or ended up in a legal wrangle which cost the taxpayer 7 million.


  • Options
    #105
    Dubl07
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Dubl07


    maryishere wrote: »
    No peope are not whispering about conspiracy theories, there is no corruption in Ireland. Certainly no nod nod wink wink between the top barristers and judges. The high court found against the new owners of Lissadell.

    To get back to costs though, do you not agree with the Troika re legal costs? After all, none of the Anglo Irish owners of estates blocked rights of way as far as I know or ended up in a legal wrangle which cost the taxpayer 7 million.

    You're flogging a dead horse. Your incessant wittering about the Anglo Irish landowners, the remark about burning and this red herring about legal costs is making me a) resolve to never spend a tourist euro in Sligo ever again and b) wonder if you've relatives involved.


  • Options
    #106
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    legal costs a red herring? Its no red herring. Even those of us living elsewhere in the country will end up paying towards the 7 million because it said in the national press Sligo Co. council cannot afford to pay the 7 million themselves. No I have no relatives involved, but all along the west coast is a wonderful amenity to explore on holidays etc ....where it can still be easily accessed.

    Now, you did not answer the question : do you not agree with the Troika re legal costs?


  • Options
    #107
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    maryishere wrote: »
    legal costs a red herring? Its no red herring. Even those of us living elsewhere in the country will end up paying towards the 7 million because it said in the national press Sligo Co. council cannot afford to pay the 7 million themselves. No I have no relatives involved, but all along the west coast is a wonderful amenity to explore on holidays etc ....where it can still be easily accessed.

    Now, you did not answer the question : do you not agree with the Troika re legal costs?
    What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? That the family might not have been able to afford the house if they weren't in the legal trade?


  • Options
    #108
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    No, thats not the point the Troika made about legal costs / procedures in this country. Do you not think 7 million is very high legal costs in a right of way case? The whole estate only cost half that.


  • Options
    #109
    Dubl07
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Dubl07


    maryishere wrote: »
    legal costs a red herring? Its no red herring. Even those of us living elsewhere in the country will end up paying towards the 7 million because it said in the national press Sligo Co. council cannot afford to pay the 7 million themselves. No I have no relatives involved, but all along the west coast is a wonderful amenity to explore on holidays etc ....where it can still be easily accessed.

    Now, you did not answer the question : do you not agree with the Troika re legal costs?

    Legal costs are high partly because of supply and demand. The best barristers are more likely to have greater prowess at research, deduction and argument.

    A successful barrister will have put an incredible amount of effort, time and money into his or her career. He or she will have backroom staff helping prepare the case. A law degree weeds out some wannabes, devilling others and a poor record in court more still. Legal representatives are not people who work a seven hour day five days a week and finish at 5pm each day with nothing on their mind but recreation until they're next on the job. Their remuneration reflects that.

    Yes, I'd like to see a simpler court system that costs less but that is for the legislature to decide. For now we have the legal system that is in place with the costs that apply.

    In this instance, seven million was spent because the house owners had done their research, knew their rights and were prepared to defend those rights all the way to the Supreme Court. A simple court case became a protracted legal battle because Sligo CoCo didn't have a bit of common sense.


  • Options
    #110
    Focus_sligo
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭Focus_sligo


    maryishere wrote: »
    The ordinary people - locals and tourists - will no longer be able to travel on the road / right of way through the house to the sea, and will not be able to admire the splendid architecture of the outside of the house, as generations have been free to do.

    The ordinary people will though rates and taxes pay the legal costs. Did not the troika have harsh words to say about the cost of the legal profession in Ireland....but nothing was done about it? Heard an auld wise fellow on a high stool the other day remark "Say what you want about the old ruling class, but they allowed people rights of way and they did not have holiday homes costing 13 million." Who paid for that?


    I'm a local to the area, and also was a subcontracted builder during renovations work. I lost my job the day sligo cc decided to take this case. There only ever was one route through the estate that was fully open to the public.

    One disputed route was only opened during renovations as it was overgrown with bushes trees etc

    One route always had a closed gate as main entrance to the house, a private entrance. The route to the beach was always open, and the new owners never attempted to close it. It still remains open to this day.
    The other route was a sandy road, never a paved road, and rarely used but for farmers. This had a gate added but wouldn't obstruct any walkers, and it would be daft to try drive a car across the route.

    This is the way I remember it!

    The house and surrounding roads were used by people arsing about in cars at night and when the new owners moved in they rightly closed some roads around the house to protect it and the gardens.

    I live close by, I lost a job when restoration stopped. You say your not local and yet you complain about the new owners actions. I say butt out!! The day the council moved in was a sad day for the majority of locals! And now it will cost us all in the long run. Our local shop closed with the loss of passing tourist and it's already had a bad affect on the local economy.
    I hope they reopen this fine attraction as soon as they can!


  • Options
    #111
    6781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭6781


    Rights of ways are something that should be abolished unless you have land that doesn't have road frontage and need to use a right of way to get access to your farmland, or in the past where people needed access to drinking wells. But now that everyone is on group scheames or getting water from the council that's dated too.

    There are still plenty of commonage in the country where assholes can walk Sparky on their Sunday afternoons without trespassing on private property.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    "Stupid is as stupid does"
    - Mrs Gump


  • Options
    #113
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Folks - the thread is about costs, and nobody has yet clarified who is going to pay. It doesn't matter now that the Supreme Court reversed the High Court decision - it happens, that's why they are there. It doesn't matter which individual councillor proposed the course of action Sligo Co Co embarked on - a majority of them voted for it. It doesn't matter what barristers earn.
    What does matter is that this was a decision of the elected members of Sligo County Council acting by resolution - not an executive decision of the County Manager. A loss has accrued to Sligo County Council as a direct consequence of the decision. The highest court in the land has said the decision was wrong and the legal case is over.
    In law, liability for the costs lies with the elected councillors who voted in favour of the motion. Personal liability - even if it bankrupts them, and it's joint and several liability - all equally liable for all the money.

    Can anybody offer an alternative - and please don't just say 'the tax payer pays etc' unless you have a solid line of alternative argument to explain exactly why. Sligo County Council is a legal entity separate from the State. It does not have access to Exchequer funds at its own discretion.

    My opinion is that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the next big move on this, whenever Sligo County Council is audited.


  • Options
    #114
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    Folks - the thread is about costs, and nobody has yet clarified who is going to pay. It doesn't matter now that the Supreme Court reversed the High Court decision - it happens, that's why they are there. It doesn't matter which individual councillor proposed the course of action Sligo Co Co embarked on - a majority of them voted for it. It doesn't matter what barristers earn.
    What does matter is that this was a decision of the elected members of Sligo County Council acting by resolution - not an executive decision of the County Manager. A loss has accrued to Sligo County Council as a direct consequence of the decision. The highest court in the land has said the decision was wrong and the legal case is over.
    In law, liability for the costs lies with the elected councillors who voted in favour of the motion. Personal liability - even if it bankrupts them, and it's joint and several liability - all equally liable for all the money.

    Can anybody offer an alternative - and please don't just say 'the tax payer pays etc' unless you have a solid line of alternative argument to explain exactly why. Sligo County Council is a legal entity separate from the State. It does not have access to Exchequer funds at its own discretion.

    My opinion is that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the next big move on this, whenever Sligo County Council is audited.

    Not saying you're wrong, but where are you getting this from?


  • Options
    #115
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    Not saying you're wrong, but where are you getting this from?

    30+ years experience of public sector law, accounting and auditing...couple of formal quals in those areas too.


  • Options
    #116
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,654 ✭✭✭✭josip


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    In law, liability for the costs lies with the elected councillors who voted in favour of the motion. Personal liability - even if it bankrupts them, and it's joint and several liability - all equally liable for all the money.

    In that case surely the councillors have the councillor's equivalent of Director's liability insurance?
    They'd be crazy not to have it.
    Either that or they'd never vote in favour of doing anything.


  • Options
    #117
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    josip wrote: »
    In that case surely the councillors have the councillor's equivalent of Director's liability insurance?
    They'd be crazy not to have it.
    Either that or they'd never vote in favour of doing anything.

    I've never known a councillor who had that kind of insurance. If they'd had it, the insurance company would have taken over the running of the case and settled long ago. I would argue that if they had such insurance, they would be voting for all sorts of populist crack-pot ideas because there would be no consequences. If this issue plays out the way I think it might, it will be a great wake-up call to all in public office.
    Two generations back, when all local government funding came directly from ratepayers, people were extremely prudent in relation to who they elected, and councillors were extremely conservative in how they spent the ratepayers' money. That has all been eroded in the past forty years.


  • Options
    #118
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    I've never known a councillor who had that kind of insurance. If they'd had it, the insurance company would have taken over the running of the case and settled long ago. I would argue that if they had such insurance, they would be voting for all sorts of populist crack-pot ideas because there would be no consequences. If this issue plays out the way I think it might, it will be a great wake-up call to all in public office.
    Two generations back, when all local government funding came directly from ratepayers, people were extremely prudent in relation to who they elected, and councillors were extremely conservative in how they spent the ratepayers' money. That has all been eroded in the past forty years.

    Are there any cases that we could look at, even on a smaller basis, where the liability was enforced in the way you're describing?


  • Options
    #119
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    Are there any cases that we could look at, even on a smaller basis, where the liability was enforced in the way you're describing?


    There have been a small number of cases involving officials over the years, but nothing on this scale involving councillors. There was a councillor in Galway a few years ago who was accused of causing loss to the Council - after several trials the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the decisions of lower courts and found in his favour. As far as the nett point of law is concerned however, the principle is the same - a councillor can be held liable for losses to the council for which losses he is responsible.

    The current regulations on it and the statutory references are here


  • Options
    #120
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,654 ✭✭✭✭josip


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    There have been a small number of cases involving officials over the years, but nothing on this scale involving councillors. There was a councillor in Galway a few years ago who was accused of causing loss to the Council - after several trials the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the decisions of lower courts and found in his favour. As far as the nett point of law is concerned however, the principle is the same - a councillor can be held liable for losses to the council for which losses he is responsible.

    The current regulations on it and the statutory references are here

    But does this not indicate the opposite of what you originally claimed?
    Athough there is a statute in place, wouldn't the common law principle of stare decisis supercede that with the judgement in Galway?





    Discaimer: I have no legal expertise, just an internet browser.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Focus_sligo wrote: »
    I'm a local to the area, and also was a subcontracted builder during renovations work. I lost my job the day sligo cc decided to take this case.

    PLEASE NOTE

    The owners of the house took the legal case.


    The council did not take the legal case.


Advertisement