Lissadell House owners v Sligo Co Co

blackiebest

Would love to know if this case was heard today in the high court and any reports would be greatly appreciated.

BB

hartytkd

Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0119/breaking72.htm

Essexboy

The High Court has held for the County Council. Drinks on Joe Leonard!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-rules-public-rights-of-way-exist-on-lissadell-estate-486371.html

mikemac

The costs of this 58-day legal battle are believed to outstrip the €4m paid for Lisadell by barristers Constance Cassidy and Edward Walsh in 2003.

:eek::eek::eek:
Launching a case in the High Court is only for rich people!

fmtdoc

Delighted with the result in court yesterday, may it be a lesson to people to try to mediate or negotiate before rushing to court. If owners had sat down with Co Council in the first place, they would have come out of this with a much better compromise for them, but they refused any mediation and negotiation. I understand that Cllr Leonard's motion which triggered their court action was only brought about after the owners postponed and postponed meetings with the council over this issue over a year. Am really looking forward to enjoying Lissadell again.

Victor

For that amount of money they could have built a bypass around the estate and given it to the council.

shaneybaby

fmtdoc wrote: »

Delighted with the result in court yesterday, may it be a lesson to people to try to mediate or negotiate before rushing to court. If owners had sat down with Co Council in the first place, they would have come out of this with a much better compromise for them, but they refused any mediation and negotiation. I understand that Cllr Leonard's motion which triggered their court action was only brought about after the owners postponed and postponed meetings with the council over this issue over a year. Am really looking forward to enjoying Lissadell again.

I'm not from sligo but my parents were only on about heading up there when the house was done up, i've never been there myself so it's disappointing it won't be refurbished. Having said that it seems nuts they didn't try to negotiate prior to the High Court, especially for barristers.

It seems like the decision is a halfway house, access only during daylight? Never really been involved in other easement decisions but is that normal?

nuac

Awaitng the full judgement, but a public right of way limited to daylight hours only is unusual.

Rhamiel

can think of better ways to spend 4 million to say the least..... SNIP

dannyboy

What an excellent result for Sligo County Council. I hope they pursue and recover the €6m Costs owed to them before the owners' assets (if any) 'disappear'.

elmaco01

just got interested in this recently, seems a pity its all come down to this where no one wins and everyone loses, the victory as it will be seen by the the people demanding their rights and sligo county council will be a pyrrhic victory. In the current climate it will be especially relevant as more young people, and it will fall on the shoulders of the young, will be forced to emigrate to find work.
I've being trying to read up on this but theres not very much independent comment, the judges verdict is a bit strange in that the right of way exits during daylight hours, never heard that before, would think thats open to challenge. Whatever about rights of way through the estate would have thought that a right of way past a front door would be have been a big no no and probably came about due to the mental state to the owner of the estate at the time.
I think whether the estate is small (as in a 3 bed house and garden) or large I do think you should have a right to object to people walking across your garden, if the estate is large I think the right to privacy should extend to the immediate vicinity of your house same as any private dwelling in the Irish republic. It is a democracy after all and we should be allowed to own and enjoy our private homes.
Perhaps the answer to this is for the Government to purchase the house and then all problems will be resolved, they'll will extinguish all rights of way, charge everyone for entrance as Coilte do and everyone will be happy.

rubensni

Good RTE radio documentary on the background to the case:
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2011/pc/pod-v-12021141m14slissadelldoconone-pid0-2474472.mp3

elmaco01

Thanks rubensni, I listened to the programme, it was good for background and for putting both sides of the story, however I still feel there is a lot more to this than what is being reported. I thought what the lady from the Yeats society had to say about how the Gore-booth sisters thought re free access to the estate was very interesting. I thought Councillor Leonards following comments very dismissive and patronising. I can see this ending up in the supreme court as the owners have nothing left to lose and everything to gain and as we know from previous cases it could all be easily overturned.

xE

Waste of Court time anyone?

There were ample opportunities for mediation in this case, and the two plaintiffs are practitioners who have had every advantage in life. Obviously I'm sure that the case is not as simple as it appears in the papers, regardless their approach to the community in Sligo has been disappointing, to say the least.

Since the judgment, they have erected barbed wire barricades along with 25 "Keep Out - Private Property" signs. Not a good gesture to the local community or an advertisement for the profession.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0110/1224287157216.html

Tom Young

xE wrote: »

Waste of Court time anyone?

There were ample opportunities for mediation in this case, and the two plaintiffs are practitioners who have had every advantage in life. Obviously I'm sure that the case is not as simple as it appears in the papers, regardless their approach to the community in Sligo has been disappointing, to say the least.

Since the judgment, they have erected barbed wire barricades along with 25 "Keep Out - Private Property" signs. Not a good gesture to the local community or an advertisement for the profession.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0110/1224287157216.html

Sure. You're entitled to your own view. I'd be very cautious about the waste of court time point though and what on earth has this got to do with the profession? As citizens surely the owners are as entitled to access to the Courts as any other citizens?

nuac

Judge McMahon's judgement now available on BAILI

axer

I was listening to this on RTE radio the other day. What an awful result for the owners of Lissadell. Some people have an awful sense of entitlement and begrudgery. Hopefully this issue can be rectified in the Supreme Court.

Tom Young

axer wrote: »

I was listening to this on RTE radio the other day. What an awful result for the owners of Lissadell. Some people have an awful sense of entitlement and begrudgery. Hopefully this issue can be rectified in the Supreme Court.

Like in every case litigated before the Courts. There is a winner and a loser. In the context of this particular case, there are no winners at all to my mind. The McMahon J. judgment is thorough and my own feeling is that it will be hard to overturn it in the Super Court.

In the context of this case one must feel sympathy for both sides of the equation to my mind. If the family wanted to occupy the House for whatever reason, can you imagine having the rights of way as close as they are explained in the judgment? The Gore-Booths took a view on this and ultimately may have allowed a set of historical circumstances continue for a period of time while they were in ownership and occupation, however those rights were well and truly established from what I can tell.

I wonder what the insurance costs must be for such rights and the costs in terms of occupiers liability for the owners?

In expressing my own view, I'd say the best outcome here would be to have some form of PPP - Public Private Partnership, mediated with the owners and Sligo County Council. Not that the council ends up owning the rights of way mind, but in order to restore some balance to the huge costs and whatever 'vision' the owners had. There is no doubt that the house can be a significant cash cow for the area.

Tom

elmaco01

Scanned through the judgement, very thorough, interesting point made about when the estate was adminstered by the high court and it not accepting monies from the council to the estate to avoid a situation where there could be implied that there was some rights of way.

I regularly walk through a big estate, Donadea CoKildare, except this is now under the control of Coilte, the house and remaining lands were passed to the Government sometime in the forties. The house was in perfect condition but now is a ruin, just walls. the reason being that until relatively recently all land which had a house with a roof had to pay property tax so the roof was removed and a beautiful house was allowed to become a ruin.

I pay €30 a year to coilte and gain access to all Coilte managed forests for a year for that very small sum, I consider this be extremely good value and dont mind paying to access the wonderful amenities and facilities provided in return. I used to walk the gounds prior to the charge being introduced, it was very rough and ready then with no facilities and the paths and roads were in very bad condition, now there is a restaurant, toilets, the paths and roads are maintained and people are welcome to visit.

Point being you get what you pay for and during the time of the Gore-booths the estate from all descriptions was decrepit and during the time of the new owners it was brought back to its former glory. I suppose this will be resolved when the people involved decide what they really want, the estate back the way it was, delapidated and badly maintained or as it is now but without the open access they had or maybe a compromise where they get free access but they forego the rights of way or maybe one right of way is maintained away from the house.

I wish everyone involved in this dispute the very best and hope its resolved soon. I would love to visit and would love to attend future concerts as I have heard its a brillant venue for same.

rubensni

Tom Young wrote: »

In expressing my own view, I'd say the best outcome here would be to have some form of PPP - Public Private Partnership, mediated with the owners and Sligo County Council. Not that the council ends up owning the rights of way mind, but in order to restore some balance to the huge costs and whatever 'vision' the owners had. There is no doubt that the house can be a significant cash cow for the area.

Surely caveat emptor applies - why should the taxpayer pay anything for what the judge ruled is a public right that existed prior to the Walsh-Cassidys purchasing the house, notwithstanding any plans they had for the estate prior to purchase.

Spaulding

Hi there,

Just wondering if anybody who followed the Lissadel case closely knows why Sligo County Council did not seek to simply create a new public right of way along the routes of the disputed pathways in accordance with section 207 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, instead of amending the Sligo County Development Plan at that time to show an existing public right of way in accordance with Section 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2000? I've only included the first subsections of Section 207 and 14 below (the other subsections generally refer to notices, appeals etc).

Many thanks!

Compulsory powers for creation of public rights of way.

207.—(1) If it appears to the planning authority that there is need for a public right of way over any land, the planning authority may, by resolution, make an order creating a public right of way over the land.

Public rights of way in development plans.

14.—(1) Where a planning authority proposes to include, for the first time, a provision in a development plan relating to the preservation of a specific public right of way, it shall serve notice (which shall include particulars of the provision and a map indicating the right of way) of its intention to do so on any owner and occupier of the land over which the right of way exists.

ittakestwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894155#Comment_119894155

I would imagine the scope in which CoCo can created public right of ways is very limited and there would be need for a specific reason. A CoCo cant just decide to but a public ROW through a private estate because a few locals want to take a short cut to a beach or a forest etc. So in the case of lissadelll I doubt 207 could be applied.

An example where 207 may applie would be in cases where an existant public road needs to be widened to take growing ussers but due to physical constraints at certain pionts they may need to deviate the road. They could use 207 to allow them do this.

Spaulding

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119905076#Comment_119905076

Thanks very much for the response ittakestwo!

That would seem like a reasonable reading of 207. However, when read literally, section 207 clearly states that where it appears to the council that there is a need for a public right of way over land, that it may (by resolution) make an order creating one. It the drafting seems fairly unambiguous. Therefore, I find it difficult to see why Sligo County Council would not have at least tried to rely on it, given that they were prepared to update the county development plan (maybe even rely on both).

Although, I guess if the legislation was to give rise to absurd results, for example if a county council was creating a public rights of way at a whim the court would interpret the scope of the legislative provision differently (i.e. in a far more limited manner as you suggest). Having said that, county councils do have wide powers to compulsorily acquire property for all kinds of reasons, so not sure if a pubic right of way would be much different or unusual to a compulsory purchase order, especially in a case where the right of way to be created was genuinely of public importance or necessity.

Maybe the fact that the council believed that there was already a right of way in existence that it didn't want to go down the road of creating one!

Thankfully the Supremes overturned the lower court ruling.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1111/485933-supreme-court-overturns-lissadell-house-ruling/

2013_IESC_48_1.pdf

ittakestwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119909578#Comment_119909578

But how could the council argue there is a need for a public ROW through a private estate that is to be used for recreational purposes.

From 207 (1)

"If it appears that if there is a need for a public right of way over any land......."

I think the word "need" in the above is crucial and would have a significant meaning if a council would ever be challenged for exercising 207.

I dont think the council could show a need for a public ROW through Lissadell given that the public right of way would be used for just recreational purposes and that Lissadell is located in a rural area of low population and also there a lot of other public recreational areas close by. Ie in an area that does not require any additional recreational public spaces

The one thing that shocks me is the legal bill for what is a fairly dry and technical case about rights of way ending up at “The costs of the case are estimated at around €7m.”

It’s no wonder the Troika and the European , Commission made serious criticisms of Irish legal costs. They’re far, far too high.

ittakestwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119909746#Comment_119909746

Does anyone no the justification for the legal bill. What made it go so high? Was half of Sligo called up to give evidence?

Spaulding

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119909744#Comment_119909744

Totally take your point, just playing devils advocate I guess!

Based on what you argue though, I guess Sligo County Council could have invoked section 207 with respect to the one route that the Supreme Court agreed amounted to a public right of way i.e. the route to the beach. On the basis that the public would 'need' to get to the public beach, one would imagine that section 207 would have stood up to scrutiny if invoked there.

I can't say if the other routes through Lissadell went to a public area like a beach, or whether they were just simply availed of because they provided a pleasant walk!

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119912907#Comment_119912907

That's all a while ago. If I recall, there is/was very strong local sentiment that the relevant routes were traditional and people had used them all their lifetimes. And also resentment that these barristers who had made fancy money up in the law courts could just come in, buy the place and stop this practice. A sort of clash of culture. So Sligo CoCo went with that line I think. Personally when I hear commercial events being advertised there since, I think to myself I wouldn't go near the place.

ittakestwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119912907#Comment_119912907

I doubt they could even use 207 to create a public right of way to the beach if it had not existed. Although having local access to a beach is an advantage i dont think it would be considered a need under law. The court did find there to be a public ROW to the beach in Lissadell. But if it hadnt would they have been able to fall back on 207 to create one? If 207 could be exercised to create a ROW to a beach in the case of Lissadell then 207 could be used through any private property adjacent a beach in Ireland. Although in the scenario it could be possible i think if they had tried to exercise 207 in the case of Lissadell it would have also ended up in the courts with the owners arguing that there isn't a need for one making 207 invalid.

In Ireland it is extremely difficult to prove a ROW if the landowner denies the existence of it . Another dispute in Glencree in Wicklow also failed to prove a public right of way that went through a few courts. Land ownership rights appear to be extremely strong here which makes it difficult for people claiming ROWs or adverse possession over someone else's property. Is the basic rule of thump in Ireland that the landowner always wins?

chunkylover4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119894155#Comment_119894155

There would need to be strategic planning evidence to support that type of resolution. There would also be compensation payable but it is difficult to see what the justification could be even disregarding the absence of evidence for it within the scheme.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119913492#Comment_119913492

`The onus is on the person making the claim. Do you think the onus should be on the landowner to prove the claimant incorrect?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119910172#Comment_119910172

You can't put a price on justice. people want to bring everything down to pounds shillings and pence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119913047#Comment_119913047

I believe these barristers sold property and businesses in order to cover the purchase price for this place. Constance Cassidy is from the West of Ireland. The state was under huge pressure to buy the place for the people, and the public servant estimated the costs of purchase and renovation to be at least €30million. Cassidy and Walsh have done that for less than half that, and made Lissadell a jewel in the crown of the Irish tourist industry. I'm glad Sligo Council had to pay a fortune in legal fees and I wish Cassidy and Walsh continued success.

Irish begrudgery alive and well.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920785#Comment_119920785

'A jewel in the crown' - a blood diamond more like it. Many people would have another term for that type of landowner.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119921515#Comment_119921515

Do you want to demolish the place? Exactly what is your problem with Lissadell House? If we follow your train of thought there would be sweet fcuk all of heritage buidings about.

ittakestwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920111#Comment_119920111

But a €7m cost to one prove/rebutt a ROW over one's property is shocking. Do you not agree. €7m to stop a tresspass over your property in Ireland. Insanity

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119927027#Comment_119927027

Sligo County Council acted stupidly. They refused to buy the property when they should have, then made trouble for the purchasers when they bought it. They racked up a legal bill for their petty jealousness that they can't afford so they had to go to usual counties with the begging bowl. Morons.

Anyone else do the tour? The Cassidy-Walsh family have done an amazing job, the tour is excellent, ongoing renovations are excellent and the gardens are a treat.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119921515#Comment_119921515

What would that term be?

If memory serves me right, the State could not afford to/would not buy a decaying house with historical value. A private buyer used their own money to restore the house, a condition of the sale being it had to be open to the public for a certain number of days per year. By all accounts the restoration has been undertaken with great care and the tour is supposed to be fantastic. So what basis have you for calling the house a blood diamond, and what term would you use for this type of landowner?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119927027#Comment_119927027

The unmitigated greed of he legal profession.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119929881#Comment_119929881

Or utter stupidity of the CoCo, there was no right of way, if memory serves me, the owners were told when buying the property that a ROW didn’t exist close to the house. So which one of us wouldn’t dispute a CoCo telling us that strangers could walk by our front door after assuring us that no right exists?

If you pick a fight with two Barristers, then you better know you are on solid legal ground because you are at an immediate disadvantage.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119921515#Comment_119921515

What exactly is the problem with what they're doing with their home? Have you seen it? Have you done the tour? What do you think of the renovations? Did you walk the gardens? They've opened it up to the public, there's family photos on the wall alongside historical items, they're very welcoming, the tour is brilliant, the guides are knowledgeable and enthusiastic. They've brought the house back from a wreck to a living museum, they've revived part of our heritage.

What is the "term for that type of landowner" you refer to?

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119929987#Comment_119929987

Personally in my humble opinion, I wouldn't go near the place, let alone pay a cent towards it! I followed the case at the time and there was ample evidence of local people using certain routes all their lives. What you have here are legal eagles who made fancy money up in the four gold mines of the law courts and who came and rode roughshod over local traditions. I don't like to quote the landed Irish aristocracy thing but in some cases anyway that's pretty much what some Anglo Irish landlords did in the past, when local people got in the way - they just cleared them out.

But you may have a different sense of morality and that's fine. Carry on.

John_Rambo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930091#Comment_119930091

Lol! thats' gas, nobody was "cleared out" or lost their homes. I'm sure your attitude would change if you had people driving on your private driveway in front of your house at all hours of the day & night.

It's their home, it's a private home. Just like any house, farm, or business, you've no business riding roughshod over their privacy and trespassing on their land.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930091#Comment_119930091

Ample evidence of them trespassing isn’t evidence of a right of way. Does your malice toward property owners apply to all, or just those that stand up for their rights? What morality is there in begrudging property owners who used their own money to renovate a house?

John_Rambo

It's mad how some people have no respect for "outsiders" or "blow ins" in some parts of this country. Imagine a couple from Sligo buying a super expensive house in Dublin and locals decided they could drive through the gardens and driveway because they'd done it for years.

Wouldn't happen.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930626#Comment_119930626

https://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1220/295752-lisadell/

The original High Court case - a substantial case and you'll note that the learned judge found that "Mr Justice Bryan McMahon ruled that there was evidence that members of the public had used the routes for generations, on foot, on cycles and in motor vehicles and that they had never been told to leave or told that the estate was private property."

I'll repeat this "members of the public had used the routes for generations, on foot, on cycles and in motor vehicles and that they had never been told to leave". The judge did not find any trespass as you state.

That the case was appealed and overturned turned not on the common sense and testimony of members of the public, but on the arcane legislation concerned with the definition of how public rights of way are created in legal terms.

The world and it's dog knew that members of the public had used the routes for generations, on foot, on cycles and in motor vehicles but the law was used to clear them out, so that the place can be run as a commercial tourist attraction. Bad cess.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930937#Comment_119930937

And a Judge ruled that though the world and his dog might think a right of way exists, legally it didn’t. I might think I can walk through your garden, but that doesn’t mean I have a legal right to.

Unless I am mistaken, it was the LA/State that required the house to be open to the public for a certain number of days of the year.

There hasn’t been a mention of this since the appeals court ruling, the only reference I found online was in relation to the legal fees. Have the locals found another way to get to where they want to go without passing the owners front door? They don’t seem to have had a problem with it since 2013.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119927027#Comment_119927027

How much do you think it should have cost?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119930937#Comment_119930937

So people were trespassing on private property for years and when someone tries to put a stop to it they are vilified?

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119931178#Comment_119931178

No they weren't trespassing - they passed by and through with the understanding & knowledge of the owners of the time. However said owners didn't formally dedicate the right of way, they saw no need as it was common practice. Nothing particularly unusual in this. When the house was sold and new owners moved in, they sought to extinguish this long standing practice. Hence the High Court found in the locals favour, that members of the public had used the routes for generations, on foot, on cycles and in motor vehicles and that they had never been told to leave or told that the estate was private property.

What's unclear about this? That the case was lost in the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the accepted longstanding practice of members of the public but turned on the narrow definition of how a public right of way is legally created.

This is what baffled many people at the time, as it was as clear an open & shut case of longstanding public use defining a right a way as could be found. It was a bad day for the plain people of Ireland when this case was overturned.