Members of a group who are accused of trespassing inside a disused pub have breached the terms of an interlocutory injunction which was to prevent them from occupying the premises, the High Court has heard.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan heard that members of the ‘Revolutionary Housing League’ are “trespassing” at a property at 1-2 Chambers Street, The Liberties, in Dublin.
Eoghan Lynch, who described himself as “representing” the group before the courts this afternoon, was joined as a party alongside Seán Doyle, who told Justice Cregan that he “occasionally” occupies the disused pub while Lynch is in “occupation” of it.
Mr Doyle told the court that he had previously been involved in the occupation of Apollo House in Dublin, where homeless people had been welcomed for a period of time about a decade ago.
The men were accompained by approximately 15 other associates of the group who occupied the public gallery as the hearing progressed, with counsel for the owner of the property, Teeling Whiskey Ltd, arguing that a “garden party” had been held on site and that “members of the public” were being invited to come to the building which was being run as a “cafe” without the consent or prior knowledge of the owner.
Mr Lynch asked the court to adjourn the matter, saying that he wished to seek legal advice and that a “volunteer” at the property had been served legal documents when he was not at the address.
Counsel for the owner, Ross Gorman BL argued that the act of trespass was self-evident and that the building “isn’t safe structurally” and that he didn’t believe there was any insurance.
He said there was a “general concern” for the safety of anyone who might trespass on the property due to its state of disrepair, which he said was such that it could not be made good through any repairs of a practical level.
Mr Gorman argued that “meetings” were also being held and that the “garden party” allegedly held on Saturday may have spilled out onto the street when the court asked if it had been held in the open air.
The building was used as a pub from 1999 to 2011, but was sold to the current owner in 2016, the court heard.
Counsel argued that the owner of the property first became aware of the presence of individuals who he said had “broken in” to the property when a notice was posted outside, and an Irish Times journalist had brought this to his client’s attention.
A report from Lohan and Donnelly Consulting Engineers stated that the structure was unsound, which Seán Doyle dismissed as a “biased” representation, saying that it was the wish of the plaintiff to demolish the building, which he claimed was safe to enter.
He argued that the group had been doing repairs and that he used to work in construction himself. Doyle went on to argue that the group believed that it had a right to occupy the premises due to its own charter and that they were doing so out of a “sense of action to prevent greater injustice.”
“We’re motivated by our sense of justice, he said, telling Justice Cregan about how children had given their Christmas money to help those in need during the Apollo House project, and that he didn’t want them to think that people sleeping rough was a normal situation.
Justice Cregan outlined that the concerns of the plaintiff were “a” the issue of trespass, “b” inviting members of the public in, “c” conducting works without consent, and “d” the “dangerous state” of the building.
The court heard that there was a “localised collapse of the ceiling” and that the “timber members” were “deteriorating” while there were structural issues with the floors.
Mr Doyle claimed that the building was “absolutely safe”; however, the court countered, saying, “I only have your word for that,” before asking, “Are you an engineer?
When the court noted that the state of the building could result in a “catastrophe for members of the public”, Mr Doyle said, “We’re trying to help people, not injure them.”
Mr Gorman said that the plan was to turn the “pub” into an apartment complex, which would provide accommodation.
Justice Cregan adjourned the case for seven days, during which time he made an order forbidding Lynch, Doyle or any other person from inviting anyone into the building and conducting works, “even a lick of paint”. He said that any continued occupation of the property had to be at their “own risk” but that he would not make an order forbidding them to enter the building while they were preparing their own legal defence.
The court expressed that it had “sympathy” for the “campaign” but that it had to “decide these matters in accordance with the law.”
The case was adjourned until the 12th of June next.