Judgment: 2005-08-15 · Court archive

High Court refuses Cork City Council bid to remove couple from Ringmahon House before trial

High Court · [2005] IEHC 282

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Cork City Council (Plaintiff)
  • Liam Burke
  • Mr Justice Michael Peart
What

High Court refuses Cork City Council bid to remove couple from Ringmahon House before trial

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ringmahon House
  • Mahon
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Michael Peart held that these issues required a full trial. He said the council had established a serious issue to be tried, but it could not say that the Burkes had no possible defence to its possession claim.

The High Court has refused Cork City Council's attempt to secure immediate possession of part of Ringmahon House in Mahon from a couple who had lived there for 29 years.

Liam Burke had worked for the council's Parks Department since 1974. He and his wife Marian had occupied the West Wing of Ringmahon House since about July 1976 under a caretaker agreement. That agreement stated that his occupation was as caretaker rather than tenant and that he would leave whenever required by the council.

The council wanted possession so that major redevelopment works could proceed, including urgently planned sheltered accommodation for elderly people. After negotiations over alternative accommodation failed, it served seven days' notice on June 17, 2005.

The Burkes argued that seven days was unreasonable after almost three decades in what had become their family home. They also raised a defence based on proprietary estoppel. The council argued that the years of prior negotiations should count when assessing the reasonableness of the notice.

Mr Justice Michael Peart held that these issues required a full trial. He said the council had established a serious issue to be tried, but it could not say that the Burkes had no possible defence to its possession claim.

The practical consequences were central to the interim decision. The council said delay was costing about €7,000 a week and holding up accommodation for elderly residents. The Burkes, however, faced having to leave their home at very short notice and possibly seek temporary accommodation, only to return if successful at trial.

The judge found that this inconvenience outweighed the council's need to proceed immediately. He therefore refused the interlocutory injunction.

The judgment did not decide whether the council was ultimately entitled to possession. The court instead indicated that the substantive case should be progressed as quickly as possible, unless an agreement could be reached.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review