Lissadell House owners v Sligo Co Co

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

How much do you think it should have cost?

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.