Lissadell Costs

josip · 02-04-2014 1:18pm #1

€4,000,000 - House
€9,000,000 - Renovation
€7,000,000 - Legal Costs over 4 rights of way

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0402/606167-lisadell/

Without getting into the details of the case itself, isn't 7 million a tad excessive to resolve something like this?

I wonder where Sligo Council are going to get the money to pay it?
http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=28328

Taxpayers in the rest of the country will probably end up picking up the tab for that one.

Alf. A. Male · 02-04-2014 1:22pm

josip wrote: »

€4,000,000 - House
€9,000,000 - Renovation
€7,000,000 - Legal Costs over 4 rights of way

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0402/606167-lisadell/

Without getting into the details of the case itself, isn't 7 million a tad excessive to resolve something like this?

I wonder where Sligo Council are going to get the money to pay it?
http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=28328

Taxpayers in the rest of the country will probably end up picking up the tab for that one.

Why is the cost of the house and renovation mentioned in your breakdown? They were paid by the owners and have nothing to do with the €7,000,000

For Forks Sake · 02-04-2014 1:28pm

josip wrote: »

I wonder where Sligo Council are going to get the money to pay it?
http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=28328

Our glorious leaders are already 95m in the hole I don't think this will bother them.

josip · 02-04-2014 1:31pm

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Why is the cost of the house and renovation mentioned in your breakdown? They were paid by the owners and have nothing to do with the €7,000,000

The figures were in the RTE article and it gave a bit of perspective for me.
We're not talking about rights of way for Hatfield House. It was 4 rights of way for a house that cost €13,000,000 to purchase and renovate.

For all the money that was spent on the legal costs you could have built a mini Lissadell from scratch.

Galwayguy35 · 02-04-2014 1:43pm

Just how much are barristers paid that they can afford to spend that kind of money?

Won't it be the taxpayer that foots the bill in the end seeing as the council lost?

whisky_galore · 02-04-2014 1:51pm

A spat between toffs and locals and we end up paying part of the bill. Nice.

Menas · 02-04-2014 2:03pm

josip wrote: »

The figures were in the RTE article and it gave a bit of perspective for me.
We're not talking about rights of way for Hatfield House. It was 4 rights of way for a house that cost €13,000,000 to purchase and renovate.

For all the money that was spent on the legal costs you could have built a mini Lissadell from scratch.

But the right of way argument has nothing to do with the house. There is no right of way thru the house. It has to do with the scenic walks in the grounds, some of which go near the house, that locals have been using for decades. You cannot rebuild those scenic walks.

josip · 02-04-2014 2:08pm

I'm not sure if there's much point in us again covering ground that the legal people have already spent €7,000,000 covering.
If after €7,000,000 they haven't established the facts, then we're unlikely to achieve it in an afternoon on boards.

FunLover18 · 02-04-2014 2:13pm

josip wrote: »

I'm not sure if there's much point in us again covering ground that the legal people have already spent €7,000,000 covering.
If after €7,000,000 they haven't established the facts, then we're unlikely to achieve it in an afternoon on boards.

Do you know how the internet works?

Alf. A. Male · 02-04-2014 2:21pm

josip wrote: »

I'm not sure if there's much point in us again covering ground that the legal people have already spent €7,000,000 covering.
If after €7,000,000 they haven't established the facts, then we're unlikely to achieve it in an afternoon on boards.

So what was the point of the thread then? If it was to discuss only the legal fees, why mention the house and renovation costs? Why bring up Hatfield House? They both seem totally irrelevant. Or if you want to talk about the validity of the fees, then you can't avoid discussing the validity of the action and therfore the value of the rights of way.

Menas · 02-04-2014 2:24pm

Thread of the day!

Ardeehey · 02-04-2014 2:27pm

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.

maestroamado · 02-04-2014 2:34pm

I may be going a bit off the original topic... what I cannot understand is why the attorney general got a few legal minds together and advised the local authority of the gravity of what was involved here and the likely outcome... is that what they are supposed to do... also I am thinking that every right of way in the country can be challenged in the courts....

Alf. A. Male · 02-04-2014 2:36pm

maestroamado wrote: »

I may be going a bit off the original topic... what I cannot understand is why the attorney general got a few legal minds together and advised the local authority of the gravity of what was involved here and the likely outcome... is that what they are supposed to do... also I am thinking that every right of way in the country can be challenged in the courts....

Strangely, I think you're actually closer to the original topic than the OP was.

Plazaman · 02-04-2014 2:56pm

All because one gombeen Councillor in that area thought he'd try to pull his weight with some parish pump politics and then started this whole mess.

Why the council went along with the eejit to that extent is still up for debate instead of negotiating with the landowners.

emo72 · 02-04-2014 3:11pm

I suppose the cost of the house and renovation was quoted to compare it with the legal fees.

It seems absurd that 40 days? Arguing in the courts is half of the value of the house and renovations.

The troika was also pushing our leaders to try get those prices down to something reasonable. They are a scandal in themselves.

josip · 02-04-2014 3:13pm

emo72 wrote: »

I suppose the cost of the house and renovation was quoted to compare it with the legal fees.

It seems absurd that 40 days? Arguing in the courts is half of the value of the house and renovations.

The troika was also pushing our leaders to try get those prices down to something reasonable. They are a scandal in themselves.

Thanks Dear Emo from a misunderstood soul.

emo72 · 02-04-2014 3:20pm

josip wrote: »

Thanks Dear Emo from a misunderstood soul.

Jaysus mate, go easy, you just blew up my sarcasm detector.

Bichon Lover · 02-04-2014 3:29pm

Plazaman wrote: »

All because one gombeen Councillor in that area thought he'd try to pull his weight with some parish pump politics and then started this whole mess.

Why the council went along with the eejit to that extent is still up for debate instead of negotiating with the landowners.

The"gombeen councillor " stood out against mass rezoning of land by the council: were it not for him, Sligo would have even more ghost estates! Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

The_Minister · 02-04-2014 4:26pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Just how much are barristers paid that they can afford to spend that kind of money?

Won't it be the taxpayer that foots the bill in the end seeing as the council lost?

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/80E6B54ACBDD010F80257825004C972D?Open&Highlight=0,lissadell,~language_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/408746DF7372520180257C2000442748?Open&Highlight=0,lissadell,~language_en~

Two incredibly long judgments, with the High Court judgment over 300 pages long and requiring an index, should give you some small idea as to how complex this case was.
This was not a usual case.

sillyoulfool · 02-04-2014 4:50pm

The_Minister wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/80E6B54ACBDD010F80257825004C972D?Open&Highlight=0,lissadell,~language_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/408746DF7372520180257C2000442748?Open&Highlight=0,lissadell,~language_en~

Two incredibly long judgments, with the High Court judgment over 300 pages long and requiring an index, should give you some small idea as to how complex this case was.
This was not a usual case.

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

The_Minister · 02-04-2014 5:27pm

sillyoulfool wrote: »

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

If that was the case, Councils would nearly never take any legal action, even to defend public rights.

wendell borton · 02-04-2014 5:43pm

I think Sligo cc were right, they tried to uphold the rights of the people they are supposed to represent. People had long used the grounds of lissadell as a public amenity therefore meeting the requirements for a right of way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nec_vi,_nec_clam,_nec_precario).

For once a cc was looking out the "many" instead of doing favours for developers and big land owners, whats unfortunate about this case is the absurd fees of the legal profession and that their weaseling won the day.

dbrunson · 02-04-2014 5:47pm

Plazaman wrote: »

All because one gombeen Councillor in that area thought he'd try to pull his weight with some parish pump politics and then started this whole mess.

Why the council went along with the eejit to that extent is still up for debate instead of negotiating with the landowners.

+1. and per the norm, no one will be held accountable for this shambles.

Menas · 02-04-2014 6:34pm

dbrunson wrote: »

+1. and per the norm, no one will be held accountable for this shambles.

Exactly, the tax payer pays....as usual.
Interestingly the counciler who led this fiasco announced yesterday that he is not standing for re election.

Santa Cruz · 02-04-2014 6:52pm

Bichon Lover wrote: »

The"gombeen councillor " stood out against mass rezoning of land by the council: were it not for him, Sligo would have even more ghost estates! Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

Exactly Mussolini made sure the trains ran on time and see what thanks he got.

Santa Cruz · 02-04-2014 6:54pm

wendell borton wrote: »

I think Sligo cc were right, they tried to uphold the rights of the people they are supposed to represent. People had long used the grounds of lissadell as a public amenity therefore meeting the requirements for a right of way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nec_vi,_nec_clam,_nec_precario).

For once a cc was looking out the "many" instead of doing favours for developers and big land owners, whats unfortunate about this case is the absurd fees of the legal profession and that their weaseling won the day.

The Courts didn't agree with your bar stool legal argument

Sulla Felix · 02-04-2014 9:38pm

I think the price of the house is relevant. It highlights how stupid the council was, when it could have bought the place outright for less than they now have to pay for the establishment of a single, truncated right of way.
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.

sillyoulfool · 02-04-2014 9:47pm

wendell borton wrote: »

I think Sligo cc were right, they tried to uphold the rights of the people they are supposed to represent. People had long used the grounds of lissadell as a public amenity therefore meeting the requirements for a right of way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nec_vi,_nec_clam,_nec_precario).

For once a cc was looking out the "many" instead of doing favours for developers and big land owners, whats unfortunate about this case is the absurd fees of the legal profession and that their weaseling won the day.

The Supreme Court found that most of what is in your post was untrue.
No right of way existed in 3 out the 4 claimed by the CC.
The CC were not defending the publics rights as the public have no rights to enter private property.
Whats sad about this case is that a handful of opportunistic councillors playing populist politics have cost the rate payers of Sligo millions of Euros with their weaseling.
Thank the Gods for the Supreme Court and their determination to protect the rights of the citizen to peacefully occupy their property.

whisky_galore · 02-04-2014 9:55pm

If this was the uk, the state would have bought the pile and opened it to the public and we wouldn't have this legal p!ssing contest.

The only real winners here are the legal eagles.
Cha ching for them. Fcukers.

JCJCJC · 02-04-2014 10:07pm

Glad to see a thread on this. From a little knowledge of Local Government law, this - theoretically - should not fall on the ratepayers, or the exchequer. the decision that has been challenged was a reserved function- ie one that lies entirely with the elected councillors, acting by resolution. Where they have been found to have acted contrary to law, the loss caused to the corporate entity that is Sligo County Council should be surcharged to each councillor who voted in favour, by the local government auditor. The auditor has the power to surcharge or charge at any time, but now that the SC has made the decision for him/her, there seems to be no room left for discretion. The Auditor would seem to be the person making the next big move in this saga.

Lissadell Costs

Comments