A High Court judge has ruled that up to a dozen people unlawfully occupying a four-storey building in Dublin City Centre must leave the property by the end of the month.
Sumberry Limited had brought proceedings against people alleged to be trespassing at property, which had formerly been a music shop, known as West End House at 134 James Street in Dublin 8.
When the matter came before the High Court on Tuesday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said he was satisfied to make mandatory orders requiring all parties alleged to be trespassing and unlawfully residing at the building to leave.
After hearing submissions from one of the people living there, Jem Cleaver, the judge agreed to put a stay on the orders until May 29th.
The judge told her that she has no right to occupy the property, and that all those living there must have known the day when they would have to leave was "inevitable".
Clearly they had no right to be there given that no valid tenancies nor leases between the owners and the residents exist, the judge said.
The judge explained he was granting the stay to allow those living there to make arrangements to find alternative accommodation.
Stephen Bedford, who is a named defendant in the proceedings and was alleged to have been seen by the plaintiff's agents at the property, was not present in court when the case was called.
In her submissions to the court, Ms Cleaver, who represented herself, said she was seeking legal advice on the matter. She described herself as just "a simple country girl", and added that Mr Bedford did not reside at the building.
Unknown parties
In its application seeking the injunctions, the company, represented by David Geoghegan Bl and instructed by solicitor Gartlan Furey, said it bought the building in 2021 for €800,000, and has secured planning permission to develop it into 11 apartments.
It claimed the property, which had previously been unoccupied and boarded up, has been occupied by several unknown parties since sometime last January.
The company further claimed that it was not able to gain access to the property and that none of those in occupation had permission or lawful reason to be present at the building.
The building is not suitable for residential accommodation, the court heard, and the plaintiff has health and safety concerns for those currently in occupation.
The court heard the building was not previously used for residential purposes and may not have a working fire alarm system.
As a result, the company sought various orders, including an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing to occupy the property.
The plaintiff also seeks orders restraining the defendants from preventing the owners from accessing the building and that the defendants vacate and cease trespassing on the property.
Entitlement
In reply, Ms Cleaver disputed many of the plaintiff's claims, and said the property consists of three flats, with working utilities, fire alarms and extinguishers, and was used as a rehearsal venue for musicians rather than as a music shop.
She said she had resided there with her boyfriend, and argued that she and others had not been properly served with the court documents in respect of the injunction application.
She was also critical of the owners' attempts to communicate with the residents in respect of the matter. However, she accepted that she had no entitlement to reside in the property.
While it was accepted that she could only speak for herself and not the other residents, Ms Cleaver said she would comply with the court order.
She added that time was needed to allow the residents to attempt to find alternative accommodation, given the current housing crisis.
Mr Justice Sanfey agreed to place a stay on his order to vacate the property until May 29th, and asked Ms Cleaver to inform the other residents of the court's decision.
The matter will return before the court later this month.
