The High Court has removed a stay on an order made before Christmas allowing a group of alleged trespassers to temporarily reside at adjoining buildings on Dublin's northside until after the festive holidays.
The lifting of the stay by Mr Justice Rory Mulchay today means that the entire site at 364-374 North Circular Road, and 168-89 Phibsborough Road in Dublin 7.
Which had been allegedly unlawfully occupied by persons for several months, must be immediately vacated.
It is believed that all those living on the site had left prior to the matter coming before the court on Saturday morning.
The stay, which had allowed those who have been residing in certain parts of the overall site deemed residential, for the last number of months, was due to expire on January 8th.
The judge had also previously made orders directing that other parts of the site, which it is claimed had been used by the alleged trespassers as a community centre, be vacated immediately.
However the owner of the properties, Garvagh Homes Limited, returned before the High Court shortly before Christmas seeking to have the stay lifted after it claimed its agents were attacked by bricks and other implements thrown by persons in the buildings.
Garvagh, represented by Martin Hayden SC, claimed the attack, when his clients were attempting to secure other parts of the overall site, amounted to a "clear breach" of the court's orders.
Garvagh claimed its operatives were attacked by several persons throwing items including bricks, rocks, delft and other implements from residential parts of the site.
Its workers were attempting to secure the commercial part of the site and were not going to do anything in relation to the residential areas.
It also claimed that messages went out on social media on behalf of the trespassers calling for others to come to the property and support them in their attempts "to prevent an eviction."
Terms of the stay
Garvagh said its agents had no intention of evicting anyone, and that it had fully complying with the terms of the stay.
As well as seeking to have the stay lifted, Garvagh also brought motions for attachment and possible committal to prison against any persons alleged to have breached various orders made to vacate the property.
Counsel said that after that application was made, there was a further breach of the orders when an event was advertised at the property called "Squatmas" inviting persons to come along to the property for "a final goodbye" and to "enjoy a big feed squat games, fire and tunes."
Counsel added that it did appear that nobody was living at the properties since Christmas Eve.
On Saturday, one of those who had been residing on the property, Ms Jem Cleaver, who had nothing to do with and was not present when the incident involving the workers occurred, asked the court not to lift the stay.
She told the court that the incident had occurred as a result of the plaintiff's own actions.
Representing herself, she said that not everyone living there was involved in what happened to the plaintiff's workers, and added that the lifting of the stay amounted to "collective punishment" on all residents.
In his ruling Mr Justice Mulcahy dismissed Ms Cleavers arguments, and said he was lifting the stay he had placed on his order.
The judge said that he was satisfied that his orders had been breached, and he was therefore lifting the stay, although there was evidence that the properties appear to have been vacated.
The court also noted that Garvagh was not proceeding with its motion for the attachment and committal of persons alleged to have breached the courts orders.
The judge further expressed his hope that the matter will not return before the court.
Garvagh's proceedings was against several named parties and several more unknown persons.
It accepts that some of the named defendants in the proceedings, namely Mr Shane O'Brien and Ms Cleaver were not involved in the incident and have moved elsewhere.
Commercial units
The court heard its action was aimed at ending the alleged trespass so it can secure vacant possession of the site.
It wants to redevelop the properties into apartments and commercial units.
It says works been held up because the alleged trespassers have been using the properties to hold events including poetry reading, boxing, raves, gigs and, as a community centre they called "That social centre".
It claims that the trespassers have no legal right to be there, that alcohol has been sold on the premises, and that the site has considerable health and fire safety issues.
It also claims that there are serious fire safety issues in relation to the site.
Previously Mr Justice Mulcahy granted Garvagh orders directing all alleged trespassers to vacate a former carpet showroom, some flats over disused commercial units and a garage.
The site, Garvagh claimed, was unlawfully being used by persons as a place to live, while another section had been used for various social events, and had been described by the alleged trespassers as a community centre.
The judge granted Garvagh, which never gave any party permission to use the site, an injunction requiring the entire property to be vacated.
However he placed a stay on the order from coming into effect on the residential parts of the site only until the 8th of January.
The commercial part of the site was to be vacated immediately, he also ruled.
The matter will return before the court in late January after the new legal term begins.
