The Court of Appeal ordered Bernard and Helen McDonagh, and people acting with or connected to them who had notice of the order, to remove themselves and their caravans, vehicles and associated property from Clare County Council land at Cahercallamore, Ennis. The order was stayed until 6pm on 31 May 2021. The court also affirmed the High Court’s other orders and directed the appellants to pay the Council’s costs of the High Court proceedings and the appeal, with the amount to be determined if not agreed.
The ruling was a judgment on costs and the terms of a stay, delivered by Whelan J. on 11 May 2021 after the appeal had already been dismissed. The underlying Court of Appeal judgment, delivered on 12 November 2020, found the appellants wholly unsuccessful in challenging interlocutory relief granted to the Council. The court said the trial judge’s decision was open to him on the evidence and that the appellants had not identified a stateable legal basis to occupy Council property. The substantive action remained pending trial.
After dismissing the appeal, the court invited submissions on whether a short stay was warranted, including to address welfare, health and safety in the exceptional context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and on costs. The Council sought a stay until 31 December 2020 and an undertaking that the appellants and their extended family would vacate the site and not occupy a highway or roadway within one mile of it after the stay. No undertaking was forthcoming. The court granted a stay only until 31 May 2021 at 6pm.
The Council submitted that it had no available Traveller-specific accommodation for the appellants and that it would try to provide non-Traveller-specific accommodation if they were willing to accept it. The appellants’ solicitor said they opposed orders that would leave them homeless, reported that they had health problems and relied on social welfare payments, and said they would consider non-Traveller-specific accommodation if the extended family could live together. These were submissions recorded in the judgment, not findings resolving their housing situation.
On costs, the court said the appellants had identified no valid basis to deny the Council its costs. It relied on the Council’s success and on the conduct described in the earlier judgment, including repeated planning breaches and trespass. The court ordered costs for both the High Court and appeal proceedings against the appellants.