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
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    No. The Galway case isn't an ideal comparator, but it's the first one that came to mind. That case concerned a criminal trial for fraud, which naturally ran in the courts. The principle in Sligo is surcharge by the local government auditor - not a court process, not a fraud per se. The auditor is going to see the liability for the costs in the Co Co's accounts, and he'll have to decide what to do about it, and who (plural) was responsible for incurring it. That's the one to watch.


  • Options
    #123
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,071 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    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 you please name the law that means that cllrs are personally liable for the outcomes of council votes?

    EDIT: you provided a link, thanks.


  • Options
    #124
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Geuze wrote: »
    PLEASE NOTE

    The owners of the house took the legal case.


    The council did not take the legal case.

    True, but the case was a challenge to a decision of the Council taken by resolution - court is the only option open in those circumstances. The decision was a legal step and it was from the decision that the litigation emanated. The costs have therefore accrued due to the unlawfulness of the original decision.


  • Options
    #125
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    Geuze wrote: »
    PLEASE NOTE

    The owners of the house took the legal case.


    The council did not take the legal case.

    PLEASE NOTE

    The council by attempting to deprive the owners of Lissadell of their lawful property rights, in an act of political gombeenism, left the owners with no choice but to seek redress in the courts.


  • Options
    #126
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Does anyone know the political affiliations of the councillors who voted for the motion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    Does anyone know the political affiliations of the councillors who voted for the motion?

    The Gombeen who proposed it was FG, he is not running this time around.


  • Options
    #128
    Hootanany
    Registered Users Posts: 5,477 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Did the owners represent themselves? did they charge for their services?


  • Options
    #129
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    Hootanany wrote: »
    Did the owners represent themselves? did they charge for their services?

    No they engaged legal counsel.


  • Options
    #130
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Hootanany wrote: »
    Did the owners represent themselves? did they charge for their services?

    There's an old saying: a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client...


  • Options
    #131
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    the old saying goes : a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. A lawyer representing himself would know where to look for legal information and from whom to get pertinent advice.....there's a case going on in Wicklow where two councillors may have to pay legal costs of several hundred thousands.

    regards
    Stovepipe


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Can't agree, with all respect - if you represent yourself, you loose objectivity and will interpret everything the way you want to see it. No lawyer is an expert on everything, or can be - if a top-notch taxation barrister for example needs a drunk-driving defence, he has no hope of being as sharp as a solicitor who is doing ten of them every week for years and he'd be fooling himself to think so.

    Tell more about Wicklow - but if it's only two councillors, it's hardly likely to be a majority voting in favour of something improper.


  • Options
    #133
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    Can't agree, with all respect - if you represent yourself, you loose objectivity and will interpret everything the way you want to see it. No lawyer is an expert on everything, or can be - if a top-notch taxation barrister for example needs a drunk-driving defence, he has no hope of being as sharp as a solicitor who is doing ten of them every week for years and he'd be fooling himself to think so.

    Tell more about Wicklow - but if it's only two councillors, it's hardly likely to be a majority voting in favour of something improper.

    They stupidly sued the County Manager for defamation, and lost!


  • Options
    #134
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Well, that's just the standard rule of costs-follow-the-action in litigation, the law on surcharge doesn't arise. They didn't engage their lawyers with Wicklow Co Co's money, they exposed themselves to the risk. Interesting, though.


  • Options
    #135
    Conmaicne Mara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,543 ✭✭✭Conmaicne Mara


    6781 wrote: »
    There are still plenty of commonage in the country where assholes can walk Sparky on their Sunday afternoons without trespassing on private property.

    Assholes and Sparky can stay off commonages, sheep and dogs do not mix.


  • Options
    #136
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    Conmaicne Mara wrote: »
    Assholes and Sparky can stay off commonages, sheep and dogs do not mix.


    And commonage is private - it's just owned by shareholders in various fractions.


  • Options
    #137
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    It's a pity to see that the great country tradition of doffing the hat continues to exist. I'm all for people exercising their rights, and I have no issue with this couple doing that, but it's sad to see an outcome that is going to mean that great tracts of the country will become off-limits to Irish people because of the inevitable future cases elsewhere in the country. Just ask anyone who used to enjoy taking an evening stroll around the old head of kinsale what it means when you're told that it can now only be visited by those rich enough to pay.


  • Options
    #138
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    hmmm wrote: »
    It's a pity to see that the great country tradition of doffing the hat continues to exist. I'm all for people exercising their rights, and I have no issue with this couple doing that, but it's sad to see an outcome that is going to mean that great tracts of the country will become off-limits to Irish people because of the inevitable future cases elsewhere in the country. Just ask anyone who used to enjoy taking an evening stroll around the old head of kinsale what it means when you're told that it can now only be visited by those rich enough to pay.

    Where's the land that's off-limits to Irish people? Are the owners of Lissadell not Irish, enjoying the property rights afforded to them by Bunreacht na hEireann, adopted by the people of Ireland? The alternative is Rhodesia, and what Mugabe's thugs did to the white farmers' lands - would you prefer to live under that kind of regime? This has nothing to do with doffing the hat, as you put it.


  • Options
    #139
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    Where's the land that's off-limits to Irish people?
    Old Head of Kinsale, Fenit island, Oghool Beach, Benbulben uptil recently. Unlike most of the rest of Europe, access to this country can be closed off by the highest bidder (foreign or Irish), so don't you start lecturing me about the constitution.


  • Options
    #140
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    hmmm wrote: »
    Old Head of Kinsale, Fenit island, Oghool Beach, Benbulben uptil recently. Unlike most of the rest of Europe, access to this country can be closed off by the highest bidder (foreign or Irish), so don't you start lecturing me about the constitution.


    I presume "highest bidder" is babblespeak for "owner".
    So you are complaining because the lawful owner of his /her home is allowed close their front gate!
    Wonder how you would feel if someone announced they were setting up camp in your garden.


  • Options
    #141
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    hmmm wrote: »
    Old Head of Kinsale, Fenit island, Oghool Beach, Benbulben uptil recently. Unlike most of the rest of Europe, access to this country can be closed off by the highest bidder (foreign or Irish), so don't you start lecturing me about the constitution.

    That's why we say we have a free country. You are free to work hard at school, get a qualification, earn some money and buy a place. That's what the Lissadell owners did and you seem to resent that fact. I don't. If I wanted to walk through there, I'd ask permission first, I wouldn't assume I had a right to trespass.
    There's the other little ancillary matter of occupier's liability, also known as d'insurance. On top of the right to trespass on somebody else's land, if you fell and broke something you'd no doubt feel they then owed you compensation, thanks again to the legislature we elected. No wonder landowners put up yellow signs saying f-off to all and sundry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    JCJCJC wrote: »
    That's why we say we have a free country. You are free to work hard at school, get a qualification, earn some money and buy a place. That's what the Lissadell owners did and you seem to resent that fact.
    I couldn't care less who the owners are. I resent the fact that my own country can be closed off to me. You're the one quoting the constitution from your high horse, are you happy to live in a Republic where only people with money are allowed access to the countryside?
    There's the other little ancillary matter of occupier's liability, also known as d'insurance.
    Arrah go do some research and stop spouting old nonsense. This hasn't been an issue since the Occupiers Liability Act of 1995 and not a single landowner has lost a case.

    Read what Comhairle na Tuaite have to say:
    http://www.environ.ie/en/media/Media,34121,en.pdf


  • Options
    #143
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    hmmm wrote: »
    I couldn't care less who the owners are. are you happy to live in a Republic where only people with money the lawful owners are allowed access to the countryside their private property?
    Yup.


  • Options
    #144
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    Yup.
    So if some billionaire buys up, say, all the land in the Burren, or Donegal, and closes it off to everyone but themselves, you're happy to say "private property, they can do what they want?" You'd see no balance between private property rights and the rights of society as a whole? Just to be clear.


  • Options
    #145
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    hmmm wrote: »
    So if some billionaire buys up, say, all the land in the Burren, or Donegal, and closes it off to everyone but themselves, you're happy to say "private property, they can do what they want?" You'd see no balance between private property rights and the rights of society as a whole? Just to be clear.
    That's why we have National Parks in the Burren and Donegal. No billionaire can buy those. Were you in the Burren when the Mullaghmore Interpretative Centre project was challenged (successfully) by An Taisce? Did you see the 'No Trespass' signs that went up everywhere? I was, and I did. The landowners weren't slow about asserting their property rights then.


  • Options
    #146
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    hmmm wrote: »
    I couldn't care less who the owners are. I resent the fact that my own country can be closed off to me.

    Go and live in Rhodesia then, and enjoy yourself on somebody else's land.
    hmmm wrote: »

    Arrah go do some research and stop spouting old nonsense. This hasn't been an issue since the Occupiers Liability Act of 1995 and not a single landowner has lost a case.

    Here's one - 1 minute's research


  • Options
    #147
    Gyalist
    Registered Users Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Gyalist


    Rhodesia hasn't existed for 34 years now.
    JCJCJC wrote: »
    Go and live in Rhodesia then, and enjoy yourself on somebody else's land.

    Whatever the merits of the Lissadell case, it is indisputable that the settlers in Zimbabwe enjoyed themselves on someone else's land. Unless, of course, your argument is that the settlers should be rewarded for their land theft.


  • Options
    #148
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0420/695385-lissadell/

    This one hasn't gone away...the Sligo MCCs are starting to wriggle and squeal....


Advertisement