The High Court has urged the parties in a dispute over Dublin’s Iveagh Markets building to try again to settle their differences through mediation.
Mr Justice Michael Twomey made the recommendation as part of a judgment in which he agreed that the issue of who owns the south inner city building, which is a national monument, should be dealt with first if the High Court dispute is to be heard.
The dispute involves publican and businessman Martin Keane, Arthur Edward Rory Guinness and Dublin City Council.
Mr Keane, who had been in occupation in anticipation of redeveloping the property since 1997, and his companies, have brought the action for trespass and possession arising out of his eviction from the premises in 2020 by Mr Guinness, who is successor to the original owner, Lord Iveagh.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
Mr Keane, and three of his companies, Slatterys, Traditional Iveagh Market and Iveagh Market Hotels, are suing Mr Guinness (otherwise Arthur Rory Edward Iveagh).
Mr Guinness/Lord Iveagh denies the Keane claims and has counterclaimed that the Keane side are the trespassers and have damaged the premises which is a protected structure.
There are separate proceedings relating to title between the Guinness side and Dublin City Council which claims it is the owner arising out of the building having been gifted to the city by the first Lord Iveagh in 1906 with a condition that ownership reverted if it ceased to be used as a market.
The Guinness/Iveagh side applied to the court for the hearing to be conducted on a modular basis with the issue of ownership dealt with first.
In a judgment, Mr Justice Twomey said the court did not see any prejudice to any of the parties in taking a modular approach to the hearing and it will also be in the interests of the administration of justice to do so.
He said the court had asked the parties about what the property was valued at and while the values presented were “guesstimates”, it seemed that in light of the very high cost the remedial work which will be required, it could in fact have a market value of nil or indeed a negative value to an arms’ length purchaser.
The court also requested a “guesstimate” of the possible legal costs that would have to be paid by the losing party if the case was to last its estimated eight weeks.
The judge said the figure provided was €1.2 million.
“The notion that parties could spend €1.2 million (quite apart from the wasted management time) over an asset with arguably zero value does raise questions for all the parties involved in this case,” he said.
He said mediation had been tried previously and failed.
However, in the light of his decision on a modular trial, given the time and costs involved in this litigation, as well as the values at stake, he said it is hoped the parties “might again consider the merits of a mediation/settlement of these proceedings”.
The court would urge such an approach because regretfully, it was often the case that only when it is too late- that is after a case has completed and any appeals determined – do the parties fully appreciate the amount of management time and money incurred in litigation, relative to the value of the dispute, he said.
