A ruling has been delivered by a High Court judge that a group of illegal occupiers in a four-storey building in the heart of Dublin must vacate the premises by the month’s end. The proceedings were initiated by Sumberry Limited against suspected trespassers residing in the property, once a music shop known as West End House, 134 James Street, Dublin 8.
At the High Court session on Tuesday, Judge Mark Sanfey confirmed his decision that orders demanding the alleged illegal occupants to leave were justifiable. After hearing representations from one of the occupants, Ms Jem Cleaver, a delay on the decision was allowed until 29th May.
Ms Cleaver was informed that she did not possess any legal rights to the property and it should have been evident to all occupants that a departure was inescapable. The judge emphasised that there were no binding tenancies or leases with the building’s owners, hence the occupants had no lawful right to remain.
A grace period was given by the Judge to allow the residents to secure substitute housing. Named defendant, Mr Stephen Bedford, who was reportedly sighted by the plaintiff’s agents on the premises, was absent when the court reviewed the case.
Ms Cleaver, representing herself, declared she was in the process of seeking legal advice, claiming to be just “a simple country girl” and asserting that Mr Bedford did not live in the building.
Sumberry Limited, represented by David Geoghegan Bl and solicitor Gartlan Furey, purchased the property in 2021 for €800,000, and received planning permission for transforming it into 11 flats. The company alleges that the building, previously vacant and shuttered, has been occupied by unidentified parties since last January.
It was affirmed that the company has been unable to gain access to the property and none of the current occupants had any permitted or lawful reason to be there. The building was declared unfit for residential use, and the plaintiff has expressed concern over the health and safety conditions for the occupants.
The plaintiff has expressed difficulties in accessing a property that was reportedly not previously used for housing and might lack a proper fire alarm system. Various orders have been sought by the plaintiff, including a restraining order against the defendants, barring them from staying on the property. They also requested an order to limit the defendants from barring owners’ access to the building and to ensure the defendants cease any trespass on the property.
In response, Ms Cleaver contested several accusations put forth by the plaintiff. She stated that the property consists of three flats having functional utilities, fire alarms, and extinguishers. According to her, the building has been used as a practice space for musicians rather than as a music store. Ms Cleaver lived there with her boyfriend, asserting that the court documents pertaining to the injunction application were not served rightly to her and others. She was dissatisfied with the owners’ efforts to converse with the residents regarding the situation.
Despite this, in her reply to court, Ms Cleaver admitted that she had no right to occupy the property. She expressed that she could only represent herself and not the other inhabitants but assured she would obey the court’s order. However, she pointed out that they need time to find other living options due to the current housing crunch.
Justice Sanfey agreed to postpone his order to empty the property until 29th May and asked Ms Cleaver to inform others about the court’s decision. The case will reappear before the court later this month.