Pat Kenny Legal Case

mike65

Fair play to RTE for not trying to ignore this about one of thier own.

Listening to some reporting about the squabble over 0.2 of an acre it struck me that the man is in imminent danger of becoming a laughing stock.

PK is supposed to be civilised and urbane not allegedly raising his hand to an elderly neighbour while claiming squatters rights.

The legal costs of this action are substaintial now this is in the High Court for up to a month, leaving the looser with a bill that could well bankrupt them (or force a house sale).

If he should loose badly or look very bad winning would RTE dare to fail to renew his contract?

Mike.

Overdraft

mike65 wrote: »

If he should loose badly or look very bad winning would RTE dare to fail to renew his contract? Mike.

If he should lose why on earth should it impact on his contract with RTE? He's not in court for GBH, he's there for a squabble with a neighbour over a plot of land!

mike65

Pat Kenny is thier highest paid "star" he's whiter than white and not say Eamon Dunphy of whom one expects the worst. It might (or might not) change attitudes towards him esp with regard to the Late Late Show with its audience of Grannies and Maiden Aunts.

Mike.

dresden8

The fact he's claiming squatters rights is an upfront admission that it was never his in the first place.


Scumbag.

flogen

mike65 wrote: »

Fair play to RTE for not trying to ignore this about one of thier own.

Yeah, although they really had no choice. It would have been painfully obvious that they were protecting their own had they just ignored what was going on.

Listening to some reporting about the squabble over 0.2 of an acre it struck me that the man is in imminent danger of becoming a laughing stock.

PK is supposed to be civilised and urbane not allegedly raising his hand to an elderly neighbour while claiming squatters rights.

The legal costs of this action are substaintial now this is in the High Court for up to a month, leaving the looser with a bill that could well bankrupt them (or force a house sale).

I'm doubting that it would bankrupt Kenny should he lose; I doubt the other family are on the breadline either but I've no idea what kind of money they have obviously.

That said there was the fair point made on Vinnie B's show that the legal costs may well creep to a value higher than that of the land in dispute and perhaps it's no longer about the value of the land and is instead about who wins.

If he should loose badly or look very bad winning would RTE dare to fail to renew his contract?

Mike.

I sincerely doubt it will have any effect on his contract - if it did he'd have serious reason to complain.

It's a neighbourhood spat that's gotten out of hand and nothing more than that - it might make him look a bit foolish if it all goes bad and frankly I don't think he's going to come out of it too well either way but it's not the kind of thing that RTÉ would cut him loose for.

As for the specific allegation of him shoving his neighbour and raising his fists - the fact is it will always remain as just that, an allegation. For RTÉ to decide not to renew his contract because someone claimed he was aggressive towards them would be absurd.

dresden8 wrote: »

The fact he's claiming squatters rights is an upfront admission that it was never his in the first place.

Scumbag.

In fairness to him I don't think he's ever pretended otherwise about the original ownership of the land so that's not really what's in dispute.

Overdraft

mike65 wrote: »

PK is supposed to be civilised and urbane

Err, really?

mike65 wrote: »

....not allegedly raising his hand to an elderly neighbour while claiming squatters rights.

Allegedly being the word. Kenny, predictably (according to Vincent Browne), will refute the allegation, so it's one man's word against another. How do we know who to believe? Just because he's an abysmal Late Late Show host doesn't prove he goes around threatening to hammer pensioners.

FlutterinBantam

Either way,whoever loses the case will be very badly stung,both in the pocket and in normal social interaction,as I would surmise the atmosphere on Harbour Rd.will be more than a tad chilly when the dust settles.

Would be difficult to live there afterwards I would imagine,for both parties.

I would say Kenny is in the stronger position,as if the Charltons had title to Gorse Hill surely it would have been produced by now,and that is what the judge will be concentrating on.

Sorry for straying a little of topic,but RTE had no option but to treat this as a major news item.

flonge

Apparently this trial is to last 4 wks,
its hard to know who to believe,it will also be interestin to see what happens,
here is what it says in the papers so far


'Kenny ran at me with fists raised'
Court hears how TV star and retired solicitor fell out over strip of land



RTE star Pat Kenny ran at his neighbour "with his fists raised" as their dispute over ownership of a strip of land next to their homes intensified, the High Court was told yesterday.


The dispute erupted into physical confrontation shortly after the broadcaster voiced fears that there might be attempts to develop properties in what he called "our enclave" in Dalkey, south Co Dublin, it was claimed.

Retired solicitor Gerard Charlton (73), who says he is the owner of a 0.2 acre strip of land at the centre of the dispute, said Mr Kenny jostled and barred him from entering the property before running up some steps to bar Mr Charlton "with his fists raised" from entering the property.

'Late Late Show' host Kenny, meanwhile, claimed he was assaulted when the gate to the property was banged shut on his (Kenny's) hand after Mr Charlton gained access to the land.

The court also heard accusations yesteday that Mr Kenny (60) had made a number of 'outrageous' remarks during the confrontation.

The claims came in the opening address on the first day of the hearing of the dispute which is expected to last four weeks.

Mr Charlton and his wife Maeve claim they own the property, valued on the market at between €1m and €2m -- and more if acquired by Mr Kenny, whose home runs the length of the site.

Mr Kenny and his wife Kathy, who were in court yesterday, have counter-claimed and say they are the owners by virtue of adverse possession -- or squatters' rights -- which they obtained between the period 1991 and 2003. They claim it is part of their garden, which is denied by the Charltons.

The court heard yesterday that the Charltons will say Mr Kenny repeatedly asked them over the years to sell Gorse Hill to him, to such an extent that it became "a bit of a joke".

Opening the case yesterday, Eoghan Fitzsimons, for the Charltons, said the court would hear evidence that the Charltons bought their home, Maple Tree House, in 1971 and as part of that purchase acquired Gorse Hill.

The Kennys bought an adjoining property called the Anchorage in 1988 and later built a new house (also called Anchorage) on part of the site.

Mr Fitzsimons told the court the Kennys and the Charltons became very good neighbours getting on "like a house on fire".

The Kenny and Charlton children also got on well together.

Mr Fitzsimons said the events which led up to the dispute began in February 2006 when Mr Kenny and Mr Charlton had a discussion about a bulge which had appeared in the wall between Gorse Hill and the Kenny property. Mr Charlton offered to get his gardener to take a look at it and to pay half the repair costs.

Access

Mr Kenny had previously installed an electronic pedestrian gate to control access to Gorse Hill and Mr Charlton asked for the code but was never given it and his (Charlton's) apprehensions began to grow, Mr Fitzsimons said.

Around this time, one of the other properties adjoining Gorse Hill, called 'Yonder', was due to go on the market and Mr Kenny expressed concerns to Mr Charlton that it might be bought by a developer.

Three weeks later, in July 2006, still not having got the code, Mr Charlton wrote out a letter in which he asked for the code number again. When he arrived at the Kennys to deliver it, the couple were there and a discussion took place in which Mr Kenny asked what was Charlton's "agenda" in relation to Gorse Hill.

Mr Charlton handed the letter to Mr Kenny and then decided to leave.

Outside, they continued talking and Mr Charlton made his way towards the steps up to Gorse Hill -- at which point, the court would be told, Mr Kenny jostled Mr Charlton.

The court would hear Mr Kenny ran up the steps to bar Mr Charlton "with his fists raised" telling him he was not going in. Mr Charlton got through the gate anyway and Mrs Kenny bolted the gate while Mr Kenny said he was calling the gardai. There would be an allegation Mr Charlton had closed the gate on Mr Kenny's hand.

It was during this confrontation that certain "outrageous comments" were made by Mr Kenny, Mr Fitzsimons said.

The hearing continues.

flogen

gordon_gekko - the site can do without unsubstanciated rumours that are potentially damaging to the subject at the best of times. The site needs them even less when there's a court case going on involving the subject.

stackerman

I agree dresden8, anyone who tries this on aint much better than the trav's who just stuffed €5.5 mil into their pockets in North Dublin. I still cant believe the legal system allows this. If you havent paid for it, it aint yours !! This is not the wild fecking west !! :mad:

dresden8

flogen wrote: »

In fairness to him I don't think he's ever pretended otherwise about the original ownership of the land so that's not really what's in dispute.

If somebody tells you they're a thief before they rob you, I wouldn't say there is any element of "In fairness to him".

As per the papers today the Charltons have produced evidence the land is theirs and their guy is gonna make Pat go on the stand and say "Yes, it was my intention all along to force the Charlton's off their land" or something to that affect.

Wonder what Pat's excuse for "squatting" is. How much money does he need?

flogen

dresden8 wrote: »

If somebody tells you they're a thief before they rob you, I wouldn't say there is any element of "In fairness to him".

As per the papers today the Charltons have produced evidence the land is theirs and their guy is gonna make Pat go on the stand and say "Yes, it was my intention all along to force the Charlton's off their land" or something to that affect.

Wonder what Pat's excuse for "squatting" is. How much money does he need?

It's only fair to make clear that someone isn't making two claims that contradict each other. I don't see much fairness in squatter's rights but that doesn't mean people can misrepresent someone just because they're using it to get what they want.

mike65

Kenny now suing for, among other things "assualt and battary" Lawyers eh?

Law not cheap

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/kennyp_av.html

Mike.

flogen

sunshimmer - I've removed a few points from your comment as I feel they are passing legal judgement before the courts do.

If it's the case that what you said are agreed facts by both sides then I'm happy to have them put up again, assuming you can back it up with facts.

Dublin's Finest

mike65 wrote: »

Kenny now suing for, among other things "assualt and battary" Lawyers eh?

Law not cheap

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0409/kennyp_av.html

Mike.

There's no "suing" involved. That part of Kenny's counsel's argument is a counterclaim.

DMC

And it ends in mediation.... Kenny to buy the land from Charlton.


Settlement reached in Kenny land case
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0415/kennyp.html
Tuesday, 15 April 2008 13:03

The High Court has heard that a settlement has been reached between RTÉ broadcaster Pat Kenny and his neighbour, solicitor Gerard Charlton.

The court was told this morning that the settlement was reached following more than 10 hours of negotiation on Sunday.

The Charltons said that Mr and Mrs Kenny have agreed to purchase Gorse Hill and they are satisfied with this outcome. The family said they owed a debt of gratitude to their legal team.

The Charlton family described the case as debilitating and traumatic.

A legal representative for Mr Kenny told the High Court that the Kenny family was deeply grateful to Ms Justice Maureen Clarke and to mediator Rory Brady.

Mr Kenny said that details of the settlement could not be disclosed due to a confidentiality agreement, but confirmed he is now the owner of Gorse Hill.

Mr Kenny said only one side of the dispute had been heard in court, but the claims made would have been utterly rebutted by him if the case had continued.

He said some people who were in court may have thought it was a David and Goliath battle, but it was not. He said it was a dispute between him and a neighbour, who is a successful and experienced solicitor and an owner of properties.

Mr Brady told the High Court he was satisfied both parties believed they had legal right on their side. For each family it became a matter of principle that their rights would be respected, he said.

Mr Brady told the court that each family acted in the bona fide belief that the disputed piece of land was their land to be protected and secured from the other. He praised their full and complete cooperation with the mediation process and said their willingness to discuss the disputed issues with complete candour enbaled a successful outcome.

CJhaughey

Seems like Pat is the loser, both in monetary terms and in terms of reputation.

mike65

Love to know if Kenny paid anywhere near the stated market value

Mike.

BolBill

Kennys reputation couldnt get any worse. Hes a mediocore broadcaster on ridiculous money. Has the ability to appear completely dumb (Always a plus in this country = see Politicans)

Keano

CJhaughey wrote: »

Seems like Pat is the loser, both in monetary terms and in terms of reputation.

+1

Would I be right in thinking that Kenny coughing up cash is an admission that the Charlton's own Gorse Hill???

DMC

Keano A Legend wrote: »

Would I be right in thinking that Kenny coughing up cash is an admission that the Charlton's own Gorse Hill???

No doubt about it.

The only thing that Kenny "won" was that he doesn't have to pay the Charlton's legal bill.

gordon_gekko

i wouldnt be too sure that pat kenny was the loser ,at the end of they day he got to buy it and also had a veto before it even reached the court stage on any development of gorse hill , if the charltons were that sure of victory , surely they would have gone all out for the jugular , my guess is that there was many a grey area in this case , it was a bad sign the last day when the judge more or less sat on the fence with her talk of both sides having to live beside each other

in this country , we have laws that are quite favourable to both tennants and non owners , land owners in this country dont have the protections they do in other countries

you would be amazed the **** you can pull in this country on property you dont own , believe me , i know

brianthebard

Keano A Legend wrote: »

+1

Would I be right in thinking that Kenny coughing up cash is an admission that the Charlton's own Gorse Hill???

I doubt Kenny would see it as such, and I doubt the Charlton's will be allowed suggest it, for fear of more legal action.

DMC

gordon_gekko wrote: »

i wouldnt be too sure that pat kenny was the loser ,at the end of they day he got to buy it and also had a veto before it even reached the court stage on any development of gorse hill , if the charltons were that sure of victory , surely they would have gone all out for the jugular , my guess is that there was many a grey area in this case , it was a bad sign the last day when the judge more or less sat on the fence with her talk of both sides having to live beside each other

I'd be pretty sure that the Indo and tabs will paint Kenny as the loser. I'd be shocked if they don't. Vinnie Braun will tell us later