Lissadell Costs

Plazaman · 07-04-2014 10:58am

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.

Graces7 · 07-04-2014 6:41pm

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

maryishere · 07-04-2014 9:06pm

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.

Dubl07 · 07-04-2014 9:15pm

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.

maryishere · 07-04-2014 10:38pm

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?

Sulla Felix · 07-04-2014 10:46pm

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?

maryishere · 07-04-2014 10:53pm

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.

Dubl07 · 07-04-2014 10:58pm

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.

Focus_sligo · 07-04-2014 10:59pm

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!

07-04-2014 11:36pm

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.

AngryHippie · 28-04-2014 11:15pm

"Stupid is as stupid does"
- Mrs Gump

JCJCJC · 29-04-2014 8:10am

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.

Sulla Felix · 29-04-2014 9:14pm

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?

JCJCJC · 29-04-2014 9:22pm

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.

josip · 29-04-2014 11:03pm

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.

JCJCJC · 30-04-2014 12:37am

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.

Sulla Felix · 01-05-2014 3:25pm

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?

JCJCJC · 01-05-2014 3:54pm

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

josip · 01-05-2014 4:12pm

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.

Geuze · 01-05-2014 4:34pm

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.

JCJCJC · 01-05-2014 4:36pm

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.

Geuze · 01-05-2014 4:36pm

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.

JCJCJC · 01-05-2014 4:48pm

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.

sillyoulfool · 01-05-2014 8:23pm

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.

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 7:21am

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

sillyoulfool · 02-05-2014 7:58am

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.

Hootanany · 02-05-2014 8:15am

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

sillyoulfool · 02-05-2014 8:22am

Hootanany wrote: »

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

No they engaged legal counsel.

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 8:51am

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...

Stovepipe · 02-05-2014 9:56am

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

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 10:11am

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.

sillyoulfool · 02-05-2014 11:03am

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!

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 11:11am

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.

Conmaicne Mara · 02-05-2014 5:40pm

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.

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 7:49pm

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.

hmmm · 02-05-2014 8:02pm

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.

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 8:37pm

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.

hmmm · 02-05-2014 8:51pm

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.

sillyoulfool · 02-05-2014 9:30pm

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.

JCJCJC · 02-05-2014 9:41pm

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.

hmmm · 02-05-2014 9:54pm

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

sillyoulfool · 02-05-2014 10:17pm

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.

hmmm · 02-05-2014 10:24pm

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.

JCJCJC · 03-05-2014 1:08am

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.

JCJCJC · 03-05-2014 1:11am

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

Gyalist · 03-05-2014 2:12am

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.

JCJCJC · 20-04-2015 3:30pm

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

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

Lissadell Costs

Comments