• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Lissadell owner says investment jeopardised


mccafferty cat

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
137
Snore.

Stinking rich barrister with 20 children buys enormous mansion, and has been complaining ever since.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
Snore.

Stinking rich barrister with 20 children buys enormous mansion, and has been complaining ever since.
Well, in fairness, they did buy it on the understanding and guarantee, from both the vendor and the council, that no right of way existed on the property. That appears to be now in doubt.

By the way it should be "stinking rich barristers" as they both are that! :)

He has a PI practice and she a very good licensing one.
 

TheField

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
3,252
Seems like the "stinking rich barristers" have turned the tables on Sligo County Council and the local people who wanted to walk here as they have for many years.

It's a sorry state of affairs for maintaining public 'rights of way' in this country - what hopes are there for local campaigning groups when even the state itself cannot defend same?

Time for some radical rethink on private property rights and the public good????
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,106
These people have been vilified because they are rich, plain and simple. As has been stated here and I believe a matter of public record, the vendors and the county council assured the purchasers that no right of way existed. The purchasers know better than anyone how litigious Irish society is and they were simply trying to protect themselves from the vagaries of the Four Goldmines on the Quays in Dublin. Can you blame them?
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
This calls for a boycott.
A boycott of the right of way? If only someone thought about that at the start!

I guess one has to say fair play to them for staying the course, they are now vindicated. Must have taken nerves given that no matter how well they do as Barristers (and she is pretty much the expert on licensing law) the costs in this one are enormous. The whole thing is a pity all round though.

A FG led move which will no doubt cost us all an absolute fortune.
 

Who is John Galt?

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
6,258
I have to say that I'm delighted with this outcome.
The right to have and hold property is one of the cornerstones of freedom in this state.
Compulsory purchase should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
Say what you like about these two rich barristers but by God they have balls [both of them] and put their money where their mouth is.
If Sligo Co. Council were so anxious to preserve the estate as an amenity for the great unwashed, why didn't they buy it and renovate it themselves years ago?
I somehow suspect that other axes are being ground here?
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,255
I have to say that I'm delighted with this outcome.
The right to have and hold property is one of the cornerstones of freedom in this state.
Compulsory purchase should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
Say what you like about these two rich barristers but by God they have balls [both of them] and put their money where their mouth is.
If Sligo Co. Council were so anxious to preserve the estate as an amenity for the great unwashed, why didn't they buy it and renovate it themselves years ago?
I somehow suspect that other axes are being ground here?
Some cost all the same to the State in the end. Which means really, we'll all be paying for this.
 

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
I have to say that I'm delighted with this outcome.
The right to have and hold property is one of the cornerstones of freedom in this state.
Compulsory purchase should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
Say what you like about these two rich barristers but by God they have balls [both of them] and put their money where their mouth is.
If Sligo Co. Council were so anxious to preserve the estate as an amenity for the great unwashed, why didn't they buy it and renovate it themselves years ago?
I somehow suspect that other axes are being ground here?
Certainly they were willing to invest in the property and try to make it a top level tourist attraction. The subsequent decision of Sligo CC always smelled of petty-minded gombeenism.
 

barrym

Active member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
214
Come off the toff and rights stuff....this decision throws the already shambolic state of rights to use land into en even biggers mess and who will pay the costs....??

The Ward judgement on the right to shoot someone on your land, the Wicklow farmer v ramblers, etc., has made a bollox of rights of way, rights to do things on your land, rights to walk, rights to whatever your having yourself.

No sign of Minister Shatter out on the plinth, he is too busy writing to the Egyptian Min of something or other asking him to send back an illegally removed child, ffs, a country without a government!!

The situation with rights of way is indicative of a general laissez faire attitude to rectifying the remains of British law in Ireland and of political funk to address vested interests.
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
I have to say that I'm delighted with this outcome.
The right to have and hold property is one of the cornerstones of freedom in this state.
Compulsory purchase should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
Say what you like about these two rich barristers but by God they have balls [both of them] and put their money where their mouth is.
If Sligo Co. Council were so anxious to preserve the estate as an amenity for the great unwashed, why didn't they buy it and renovate it themselves years ago?
I somehow suspect that other axes are being ground here?
I have mixed feelings, because it is an awful shame that another fine mansion is to be closed off to the public.

But I blame Sligo Co Co.

Will they as public servants have to answer to the public for this entire mess. Well, as someone else once said, will they f***.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
I have to say that I'm delighted with this outcome.
The right to have and hold property is one of the cornerstones of freedom in this state.
Compulsory purchase should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
Say what you like about these two rich barristers but by God they have balls [both of them] and put their money where their mouth is.
If Sligo Co. Council were so anxious to preserve the estate as an amenity for the great unwashed, why didn't they buy it and renovate it themselves years ago?
I somehow suspect that other axes are being ground here?
It's also a right which seems to be selectively enforced by this State.
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
The Ward judgement on the right to shoot someone on your land, the Wicklow farmer v ramblers, etc., has made a bollox of rights of way, rights to do things on your land, rights to walk, rights to whatever your having yourself.
The Ward case did not seek to pass judgement on "the right to shoot someone on your land".

The law of rights of way is confusing alright. I guess the 2009 Conveyancing and Law Reform Act gives us some hope that in decades to come most of these will be registered. Hard to see another solution.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
Of course that is only the cost of the previous High court case that Sligo Co Council will now have to pay. They will also have to pay the costs of the Supreme Court case that they have just lost.
Good point. Incredible.
 

wexfordman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
7,877
So in excess of 6 million to fight over a right of way for a historical property that they could have bought outright for 4 ?
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,251
Of course that is only the cost of the previous High court case that Sligo Co Council will now have to pay. They will also have to pay the costs of the Supreme Court case that they have just lost.
Haven't seen the judgement yet. Usually submissions re costs are heard at a later sitting.
 
Top