High Court asked to determine owner of Iveagh Markets in dispute between businessman, English lord and council

The High Court is being asked to firstly determine who is the legal owner of the building of Dublin’s former Iveagh Markets in a dispute between an Irish businessman, an English lord and the city council.

The decision will determine whether publican and businessman Martin Keane, who had been in occupation in anticipation of redeveloping the property since 1997, and his companies, can go ahead with an action for trespass and possession arising out of his eviction from the premises in 2020 by the original owner’s successor, Lord Iveagh.

Mr Keane, and three of his companies, Slatterys, Traditional Iveagh Market and Iveagh Market Hotels, are suing Arthur Edward Rory Guinness (otherwise Arthur Rory Edward Iveagh), the successor of the First Earl of Iveagh who built the market in the Liberties in the early 1900s.

Mr Keane and his companies are seeking an order for possession of both the market building and associated land, as well as damages for trespass and unlawful interference with business relations and conspiracy.

They say ‘Dublin 1 is for the far-right’ and threaten to kill a politician, yet Ireland ignores the threat

---

Unregulated student digs: A home away from home or an isolating experience?

---

Rise in school absenteeism: ‘Some stay up too late on their phones until 3 or 4am’

---

Sarah Moss: As a bike-riding vegetarian feminist I can see why people might disagree with everything I think

---

Mr Guinness/Lord Iveagh denies the claims and has counterclaimed that the Keane side are the trespassers and that they have damaged the premises, which is a protected structure and national monument.

There are separate proceedings relating to title between the Guinness side and Dublin City Council, which claims it is the owner arising out of the building having been gifted to the city by the first Lord Iveagh in 1906 with a condition that ownership reverted if it ceased to be used as a market.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Michael Twomey began hearing an application from the Keane side for the case to be heard on a modular basis with the issue of who owns the building dealt with first and the issues of trespass and damages dealt with later.

The court heard the council, which entered into an agreement with Mr Keane to redevelop the building in 1997, is now back in occupation and two government departments have promised funding to preserve the decaying building. Some €9 million is to be spent.

The Keane side is also suing the council over its refusal to grant planning permission for redevelopment on the basis of want of sufficient legal interest in the property by Mr Keane.

The court also heard that efforts to mediate the dispute failed.

Opening the Keane application for a modular hearing, Ronan Murphy SC said Mr Guinness/Lord Iveagh could establish a claim of trespass against them only once the question of title had been decided. Title was legitimately an exceptionally difficult issue and nobody could be blamed for finding it so, he said.

Mr Keane was the winner of a competition held by the council in the 1990s to redevelop the building, he said. An agreement was reached and Mr Keane paid €2 million to the council in anticipation of the completion of the sale and was allowed into possession.

Various frustrations developed between the parties, not least among them was whether the council could give good title to the premises before the full transfer to Mr Keane would take place, counsel said. Matters “wandered on” and the building was more and more difficult to maintain, and Mr Keane was very reluctant to spend any money unless title was available, he said.

Then, in early December 2020, parties acting for the Guinness side came on the land and took possession.

As a result, the Keane side sued for trespass, among other claims, which the Guinness side denied and counterclaimed.

There would be an enormous saving of legal expense and court time if a modular hearing took place first, counsel said.

The Guinness side and the city council both opposed the application for a modular trial.

The case continues on Thursday to deal with discovery issues.