Twenty people to move out of Dublin property over fire risk

Twenty people who have been staying at a Dublin city centre premises described as a potential fire safety danger are to leave the property over the coming days and weeks, the High Court has heard.

A woman, her four children and three other members of their extended family have been living on the top floor of the property at 24 Mountjoy Square, incorporating 24 Charles Lane, Dublin 1 while about a dozen students have been living in the building’s basement, the court heard.

Dublin City Council issued a fire safety notice in respect of the property in August 2016.

Earlier this month, Anne O’Dwyer of Duff & Phelps, as receiver appointed over the property in March, launched proceedings for vacant possession.

This was sought on grounds including claims a fire safety notice was not complied with and the property poses a risk to residents, neighbouring buildings and the general public.

The action is against the property’s owner Christopher Singh and TWI Textile Machinery and Fabric Company Ltd, which operates from the premises. It is claimed Mr Singh, Lisnacree, Castleknock Road, Castleknock, Dublin 15, is a director and sole shareholder of the company.

Mr Singh, represented by Vincent P Martin BL, opposed the appointment of the receiver and has hired an expert to ensure the required works to remedy the fire safety issues at the property are done.

Adjournment

The matter was adjourned last Friday by Mr Justice Paul Gilligan to give the parties an opportunity to reach an agreement concerning the fire safety issues.

When the case returned yesterday, Nevan Powell BL, instructed by OSM Partners Solicitors for the receiver, said, following an inspection, his client and the Council remained of the view the premises should be vacated.

The receiver believes substantial works costing up to €90,000 are required to make the building fire safety compliant, counsel said.

As far as the receiver knows, the building, in addition to the residents, hosts a textile business, a language school and an office where an individual markets accommodation, counsel said.

His client had been unable to take possession of the building and wanted an injunction against the owner and company requiring them to cease trespassing there.

The parties had come to an arrangement following discussions outside court, at the invitation of the judge, counsel said. It was agreed the family living upstairs should leave the building as soon as possible while the students would leave when their term concludes in a number of weeks.

It had also been agreed that fire wardens, placed in the building by the receiver to monitor it 24 hours daily, will remain there.

The receiver was also making available some money, “on humanitarian grounds”, to go towards the family’s costs of getting new accommodation.

Mr Justice Gilligan, adjourning the matter to Friday, said he was conscious of the situation the family living upstairs now found themselves in and they should be formally informed of the action.

He also said representatives of the council’s housing department should attend when the matter returns before the court.