An application by Dublin City Council for a court-ordered inspection of a Georgian building that was once the home of 1916 Rising leader Tom Clarke has been adjourned in order to avoid a possible “stand-off” with people occupying the premises.
One of the alleged trespassers at 55 Amiens Street has told the High Court that while some “had no huge objection” to the inspection, others were not sure. “We deal with things by consensus,” she told the court.
Jem Cleaver told Mr Justice Brian Cregan that she did not want there to be a “stand off” between any of the occupants and any council staff entering and inspecting the seven-bedroom building.
Dublin City Council are seeking to inspect the premises, which dates from the 1790s, for damages caused either by the recent Storm Éowyn or by the occupants.
Ireland boss Simon Easterby makes some bold and exciting selections for Wales clash
Remote working is here to stay and has whole new language about ‘hidden hybrid’ and ‘mouse jiggling’
Luis Rubiales found guilty of sexually assaulting Spanish footballer Jenni Hermoso
Ancient remains discovered in Co Derry bog ‘likely to belong to young woman’ who died violently
Last November, the council issued High Court proceedings aimed at restraining “persons unknown” from trespassing at the property after receiving reports of unauthorised occupation of the premises.
Mr Justice Cregan has been told the occupants accept they have to vacate the heritage site by May 12th next but have opposed an inspection, which they fear would violate their privacy and prejudice them on any council housing list should they give their names to officials.
Gavin Mooney SC, for the council, said that a letter had been sent to the occupants saying no such prejudice would occur and that the council was seeking an inspection to be carried out in early March. Counsel said “life would be easier” if the council knew the names of the occupants and that they were free to attend any inspection.
Ms Cleaver said an offer of accommodation from the council and the attitude of the court was “extremely reasonable” but the occupants had both “some reasonable and less reasonable concerns” about the inspection.
“I am concerned about the inspection, in that what if it is not consented to,” said Ms Cleaver.
Ms Cleaver said the 12 occupants were spread over seven bedrooms with mostly two occupants per room, and that the only communal space was the walk-through area inside the front door.
Two other occupants in separate rooms “had no huge objection” to the inspection but their roommates were not sure, she said, adding “we deal with things by consensus”.
The judge said he was inclined to make an inspection order which would be “as consensual as possible”.
Mr Justice Cregan said the terms of any inspection order would be for an engineer and an architect to visually inspect the building at a reasonable time and for this to take in the common area, three bedrooms, the roof and the garden.
The judge added that it was “unfair” on Ms Cleaver that she had to come to court to “face the music” alone and try to avoid a possible “stand off”.
“I don’t think I can get people to agree to let them [inspectors] into the building. The order you are trying to make right now is incredibly reasonable,” Ms Cleaver told the judge, adding that she did not want to “get caught up in the middle of this, or a stand off”.
Ms Cleaver noted that the 90-day notice of vacation had been accepted by the occupants on the basis that there would be no inspection while they were there.
Mr Justice Cregan adjourned the matter for one week to allow the occupants to discuss the terms of the proposed inspection.
“Your colleagues are welcome to come before me next week,” Mr Justice Cregan told Ms Cleaver. “There is no reason you alone should be sent out before the fire,” he said.
