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
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    josip wrote: »
    €4,000,000 - House
    €9,000,000 - Renovation
    €7,000,000 - Legal Costs over 4 rights of way

    The house and land cost 3.75 million, not 4 million. 250,000 is not much in the overall scheme of things though. What I would severely doubt is that 9,000,000 was spent on renovation. I was there last year on holidays and the place, from the outside anyway, was more run down than when the previous owners had it. There was even potholes ye could bury an ass in, on the drive through the estate. Shame how the new owners could not maintain it as well as the previous ones.

    As for the 7 million legal fees to sort out a right of way - that just shows what a joke this country is. You could buy about 400 brand new apartments / houses around Sligo for that, with all the unsold houses / ghost estates there are.

    With legal fees so high in this little country, wonder how a couple of barristers can end up affording (to them ) a 13 million holiday home for their family of about 6, when most families in the country are struggling on a fraction of their income.


  • Options
    #33
    Dubl07
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Dubl07


    I followed this case to an extent and was deeply concerned at what I perceived to be outright and nasty bullying by the locals of an elderly gentleman who had to sell the house, perhaps partly as a consequence of that bullying.

    Sir Josslyn inherited the property and its history. He didn't steal it from the locals and yet there appears to have existed and continues to exist an animosity towards anyone who is willing to upkeep the house and estate and boundaries. Abject begrudgery of the very worst order.


  • Options
    #34
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Dubl07 wrote: »
    Sir Josslyn inherited the property and its history. He didn't steal it from the locals

    neither did he stop locals going through the estate , as far as I know. He seems to have been a decent man, as far as I can see.


  • Options
    #35
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Ardeehey wrote: »
    Simple, court of the land found there were no rights of way (bar a partial right to one walk I think), the Council should have never taken the case and now we will have the foot the bill, no fault of the family who just stood for their rights...albeit they must have had the means to do so. Cost of the house, development and renovation are irrelevent. Those people spent their own miney on it afterall.

    PLEASE NOTE

    The owners took the court case, not the Council.

    The owners lost their court case, after 56 (!!) days in the High Court

    They appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The owners won the appeal.


  • Options
    #36
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    The councillors who backed this crazy action should be held personally financially liable for the costs.

    Note that the owners took the court case, not the Council.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    They could have made the entire estate a gift to the state in perpetuity, whatever they wanted, if they'd not had their heads up their asses in the 80s when it was for sale.

    The house was actually sold in the mid 2000s which is more embarrassing. Sligo lacks decent tourist attractions. Buying something like this house could have brought tourists to this undervalued , but beautiful part of Ireland


  • Options
    #38
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    The Courts didn't agree with your bar stool legal argument
    Geuze wrote: »
    PLEASE NOTE

    The owners took the court case, not the Council.

    The owners lost their court case, after 56 (!!) days in the High Court

    They appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The owners won the appeal.

    The high court did.:p


  • Options
    #39
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    wendell borton wrote: »
    The high court did.:p

    The highest Court in the land found overwhelmingly in favour of the owners of the house.
    A good day for the rights of the private citizen.


  • Options
    #40
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    The highest Court in the land found overwhelmingly in favour of the owners of the house.
    A good day for the rights of the private citizen.

    "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few."
    - Spock


  • Options
    #41
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    "2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."

    -Bunreacht na hEireann.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    Fine Gael councillor Joe Leonard, whose council motion led to the dispute, was unavailable for comment last night. He has decided not to seek re-election this year.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/council-faces-legal-bill-for-millions-in-lissadell-case-30151174.html


  • Options
    #43
    JCJCJC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭JCJCJC


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    Fine Gael councillor Joe Leonard, whose council motion led to the dispute, was unavailable for comment last night. He has decided not to seek re-election this year.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/council-faces-legal-bill-for-millions-in-lissadell-case-30151174.html

    It has gone beyond any individual councillor now, interesting and all as the article may be. Sligo County Council acted collectively by resolution - responsibility falls equally between all councillors who voted in favour. There is no special status for the proposed and seconder, those are merely procedural requirements. Normally the parish pump principle governs who proposes and seconds things, but it is meaningless otherwise and has no enduring significance.


  • Options
    #44
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭reprazant


    wendell borton wrote: »
    "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few."
    - Spock

    Well, all of Sligo will now be paying for failed attempt to force the owners to a allow the few to keep using their land as much as they want.

    Who needs roads fixed anyway.


  • Options
    #45
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    hfallada wrote: »
    The house was actually sold in the mid 2000s which is more embarrassing. Sligo lacks decent tourist attractions. Buying something like this house could have brought tourists to this undervalued , but beautiful part of Ireland
    The failure of the state (whether at national level or through the local authority) to purchase Lissadell was a great pity. The house has historic interest and tourist appeal.

    The government spent more on acquiring and restoring Farmleigh than it would have cost to purchase and repair Lissadell.


  • Options
    #46
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    sillyoulfool wrote: »
    The highest Court in the land found overwhelmingly in favour of the owners of the house.

    Some would say that's because the owners of the 13 million euro house were part of their own - two top barristers.

    Perhaps if the previous owner of the house, Sir Jocelyn or whatever he was called, decided to erect gates and block access on the roads through the estate, and there was a court case then.... do you think he would have won the court case? lol

    Who really has faith in the Irish legal system at this stage?


  • Options
    #47
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    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.


  • Options
    #48
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    The previous owner Sir Jocelyn was well aware that generations of people were used to walking and driving on the road through his estate for generations, and he did not dare try to extinguish those rights. Some of his fellow estate owners were burnt out over a lot less in other parts of the country.


  • Options
    #49
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    maryishere wrote: »
    The previous owner Sir Jocelyn was well aware that generations of people were used to walking and driving on the road through his estate for generations, and he did not dare try to extinguish those rights. Some of his fellow estate owners were burnt out over a lot less in other parts of the country.

    What's your point, exactly? And that's putting it as politely as I can. Which is not my intent. Have to say that's one of the most arsy posts I've ever read on Boards. Putting it bluntly, are you suggesting this family ought to be burnt out of their home? Or in some way deserve to be burnt out for daring to stand up for their own interests?


  • Options
    #50
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Stavros Murphy wrote: »
    What's your point, exactly?
    The point is the previous owner Sir Jocelyn was well aware that generations of people were used to walking and driving on the road through his estate for generations, and he did not dare try to extinguish those rights. Did he try to extinguish those rights ? Did he erect gates to block the locals? No he did not.
    it appears he got on well with the locals. There was never any problems. Of course I do not advocate anyone being burnt or intimidated out of their homes. Far from it. Indeed as an Irish person I am ashamed that some of these big houses in some parts of the country were burnt down in troubled times. Sir Jocelyn and his family are to be admired, and I admire all those who inherited big houses in the country and tried to keep them going with very little income. Not easy with inheritance taxes and maintenance costs and the land commission and our damp climate.
    We are as a country where we are, and I believe these big houses are an important part of our past, and are to be treasured and preserved. I think it could be a big tourist attraction.

    I think it would be a shame if all access to the estate was cut off and the estate/house sold to someone who would deny public rights to see it.


  • Options
    #51
    Stavros Murphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Stavros Murphy


    maryishere wrote: »
    The point is the previous owner Sir Jocelyn was well aware that generations of people were used to walking and driving on the road through his estate for generations, and he did not dare try to extinguish those rights. Did he try to extinguish those rights ? Did he erect gates to block the locals? No he did not.
    it appears he got on well with the locals. There was never any problems. Of course I do not advocate anyone being burnt or intimidated out of their homes. Far from it. Indeed as an Irish person I am ashamed that some of these big houses in some parts of the country were burnt down in troubled times. Sir Jocelyn and his family are to be admired, and I admire all those who inherited big houses in the country and tried to keep them going with very little income. Not easy with inheritance taxes and maintenance costs and the land commission and our damp climate.
    We are as a country where we are, and I believe these big houses are an important part of our past, and are to be treasured and preserved. I think it could be a big tourist attraction.

    It's the "dare" bit I find offensive. So he feared the repercussions from "de boys" if he stood up for what he wanted? So, if I shyte in your kettle, but you know I'll give you a right hiding if you complain, it's all good?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Stavros Murphy wrote: »
    So he feared the repercussions from "de boys" if he stood up for what he wanted?

    Sir Jocelyn never indicated, as far as I know, he would have wanted to extinguish the rights of way on the roads through the estate. He never blocked or tried to block the road. Why would he have? Never caused him any real problems. He got on well with the locals. Mutual admiration. Has to be a bit of give and take in this life. Compromise. Plenty of other things to worry about in this world. I saw an interview with him and I felt a bit sorry for him in a way, how he was burdened with the responsibility of maintaining and looking after that place. Good for him he sold near the height of the boom, as I believe his family had relatively little income for a long time.


  • Options
    #53
    Dubl07
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Dubl07


    maryishere wrote: »
    Sir Jocelyn never indicated, as far as I know, he would have wanted to extinguish the rights of way on the roads through the estate. He never blocked or tried to block the road. Why would he have? Never caused him any real problems. He got on well with the locals. Mutual admiration. Has to be a bit of give and take in this life. Compromise. Plenty of other things to worry about in this world. I saw an interview with him and I felt a bit sorry for him in a way, how he was burdened with the responsibility of maintaining and looking after that place. Good for him he sold near the height of the boom, as I believe his family had relatively little income for a long time.

    As I understand it, Sir Jocelyn was made aware that his life would be made difficult if he attempted to exercise his legal rights as owner of the property. As a vulnerable elderly man, he eventually cut his losses and sold the estate.


  • Options
    #54
    Plazaman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭Plazaman


    maryishere wrote: »
    Sir Jocelyn never indicated, as far as I know, he would have wanted to extinguish the rights of way on the roads through the estate. He never blocked or tried to block the road. Why would he have? Never caused him any real problems. He got on well with the locals.....

    The big difference was back in the Gore-Booth days, whilst there may have been people out for leisurely strolls, there weren't the self-righteous, "I'm entitled to walk here", indignant, wannabe posh heads who thought the could happily wander through private property 24/7 with their diarrohea filled dogs and snotty runabout, flower kicking kids. Also there were a lot less boy racers with souped up hair dryers (OK, I may be taking some liberty but there is anecdotal evidence from good sources of incidents with walkers being too familiar on the property and cars racing through the estate).

    Considering the Walshs took over the house in 2003 and for 5 years allowed the status quo to continue but then decided to close gates at night to stop increased night traffic through the estate, everything would be grand today and we all could enjoy the beauty of the place.

    That was until a motion was put forward by Councillor Joe Leonard, in December 2008 to Sligo County Council who then voted to preserve public rights of way that it contended existed on the estate. This motion was made without any notice of any kind to the owners. Parish pump politics at it's best as I stated before. Maybe, just maybe, if negotiations were made first and the owners allowed to tell their side, a compromised could have been reached and Sligo Co Co would be €7 million richer.


  • Options
    #55
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Dubl07 wrote: »
    As I understand it, Sir Jocelyn was made aware that his life would be made difficult if he attempted to exercise his legal rights as owner of the property....
    I read a summary of the Supreme Court decision, and such a view seemed to be at the heart of it: it could not be established that he willingly ceded rights of way because of the coercive behaviour of some people (I think that at least one Co. Councillor was involved).


  • Options
    #56
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,559 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I read a summary of the Supreme Court decision, and such a view seemed to be at the heart of it: it could not be established that he willingly ceded rights of way because of the coercive behaviour of some people (I think that at least one Co. Councillor was involved).
    Apropos of nothing, has anyone ever inquired as the ownership of neighouring lands that perhaps might have benefitted from a public right of way being established?


  • Options
    #57
    sillyoulfool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 587 ✭✭✭sillyoulfool


    maryishere wrote: »
    Some would say that's because the owners of the 13 million euro house were part of their own - two top barristers.

    Perhaps if the previous owner of the house, Sir Jocelyn or whatever he was called, decided to erect gates and block access on the roads through the estate, and there was a court case then.... do you think he would have won the court case? lol

    Who really has faith in the Irish legal system at this stage?

    I do.
    Particularly after they affirmed the right of the private citizen to own property without being hassled by the "something for nothing" begrudgers.
    A wise judgement by our most eminent Judges.


  • Options
    #58
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,529 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Robbo wrote: »
    Apropos of nothing, has anyone ever inquired as the ownership of neighouring lands that perhaps might have benefitted from a public right of way being established?

    If you had a farm with valuable livestock or a a small back garden would you be happy if I took a short cut through your property to get to work? In my car? Just because it benifitted me?


  • Options
    #59
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    Dubl07 wrote: »
    As I understand it, Sir Jocelyn was made aware that his life would be made difficult if he attempted to exercise his legal rights as owner of the property.

    People had been using a road through the estate as a right of way to the sea for generations. Sir Jocelyn had no legal means to close that right of way....even if he had wanted to. As a gesture to his neighbours, he probably would not have wanted to anyway. In England for example, rights of way exist and land owners are very co-operative with walkers and people going through their lands, even over grass. People are taught that tourism is very important. If there was a roadway going through a property used by the public for generations, that right of way would be preserved.

    The buyers bought the estate knowing there was a right of way through it. They allowed that right of way continue for 5 years after purchasing the whole estate for a relatively cheap price ( half the cost of the legal fees in the court case).

    I suppose if an owner was going to want to sell the estate to some mega rich pop star or businessman as a private residence, then he/she would want rights of ways extinguished.


  • Options
    #60
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,654 ✭✭✭✭josip


    maryishere wrote: »
    ...
    The buyers bought the estate knowing there was a right of way through it. They allowed that right of way continue for 5 years ...

    Mary, how do you reconcile your above statement with the conclusion of the supreme court?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    maryishere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭maryishere


    josip wrote: »
    the conclusion of the supreme court?
    Which part of the conclusion of that court, which different from the conclusion of the other court you mean?;)


Advertisement