Lissadell Costs

josip

€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

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

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

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

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

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

Menas

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

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

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

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

Thread of the day!

Ardeehey

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

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

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

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

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

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

josip wrote: »

Thanks Dear Emo from a misunderstood soul.

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

Bichon Lover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?