Court orders end to occupation of Dublin building due to be redeveloped

The High Court has ordered all persons who are allegedly illegally occupying a building in central Dublin that is due to be converted into over 500 residential units to immediately vacate the premises.

The owners and developers of Parkgate House in Dublin 8 claimed that the building had been illegally taken over by members of a group calling itself The Revolutionary Housing League (RHL), which had been using it to provide accommodation for the homeless.

On Thursday, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts granted the building’s owners, financial fund Davy Platform ICAV, acting on behalf of its sub-fund, the Phoenix Sub-fund, and Ruirside Developments, which is to develop the site into 519 rental units and other amenities, an injunction requiring the building to be vacated.

The proceedings are against Seán Doyle, Diarmuid Breatnach and all persons in occupation of the building,

Rise in school absenteeism: ‘Some stay up too late on their phones until 3 or 4am’

---

Sarah Moss: As a bike-riding vegetarian feminist I can see why people might disagree with everything I think

---

How to make the most of the Leaving Cert run-in: Study tips, social media and taking breaks

---

Nicky English: Cork are finding a flow that makes them All-Ireland contenders - if they get that far

---

Constitutional action

The property was formerly operated by fabric wholesalers Hickey and Company Ltd which vacated the site two years ago. It was claimed to be illegally occupied since late August when banners were seen hanging over the side of the property that adjoins the river Liffey and that the defendants had “barricaded themselves into the property”.

Representing himself, Mr Doyle opposed the application. He said the building had been acquired, was renamed Ionad Seán Heuston, and was being used to help homeless people of all nationalities.

Quoting James Connolly, Mr Doyle said that, “We believe in constitutional action in normal times; we believe in revolutionary action in exceptional times.” The current homeless crisis was without question something exceptional, he said.

He told the court the building had been used to help provide accommodation to those living on the street, and condemned the State’s attitude, which he described as “class cleansing” towards the homeless.

Mr Breatnach was not in court and no submissions were made on his behalf.

Another man Mark McDonald said he had been staying at the building with his pregnant partner. He said they had been sleeping on the streets for some time.

Back on the street

Mr McDonald, who became emotional while addressing the court, said that he and his partner had attempted to get help from various bodies but the only group to help them was the RHL. If the injunction was granted, Mr McDonald said he and his partner would be back on the street.

Represented by Stephen Byrne, the plaintiffs sought the orders on grounds including that the occupation would prevent them from carrying out any further works at the site, and that the occupation would result in the insurer removing its cover. The occupation had also delayed plans to redevelop the site.

The occupants have no legal right nor any authorisation to be there, and the plaintiffs claim that the building is not currently fit for habitation, and they had health and safety concerns.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Roberts said she sympathised with Mr McDonald and all those who were currently homeless.

However, she said that she was not a politician and had no role in public policy. All the court could deal with, she said, was the application that had been made before it.

In the circumstances, the judge said she was satisfied from the evidence before the court to grant the injunction sought and make orders requiring all those in occupation to vacate the premises.

The court heard that the plaintiffs would take a pragmatic approach in relation to allowing those in occupation to remove their belongings from the property. Mr Byrne said that there were concerns that the order may not be complied with.

Noting those concerns, the judge adjourned the matter for a week and added that she hoped that the order would be obeyed.