Receiver gets go ahead to sell D4 home occupied by squatters

The High Court has cleared the way for a Nama appointed receiver to sell a Dublin 4 property occupied in recent weeks by squatters.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan granted receiver David Carson, of Deloitte Ireland, various injunctions compelling those occupying a premises at 7 Barrow Street to vacate it.

Three individuals who identified themselves as Ronan Hackett, Benjamin Smith and Joseph Williams, told the court through a spokesman, James Sutherland, they were residing in the house.

They opposed the receiver’s application, arguing they would be homeless if compelled to leave the building.

The judge sad his order applies to the three and anyone with notice of their making. The three, following the court’s ruling, undertook to leave the premises by noon tomorrow.

Mr Carson, represented by Rossa Fanning BL, brought the proceedings after becoming aware on May 14th up to six people had taken up residence at the house and changed the locks.

Counsel said the people had been asked to leave the house and Gardaí were called but the occupiers refused to leave.

Counsel said Mr Carson was appointed by Nama over the property, owned by a firm related to developer Liam Carroll’s group of companies, and had sold it for €450,000. His client was concerned about the possible fallout if he could not provide vacant possession.

Mr Fanning said the property had been occupied as part of some political campaign and pictures of it, and requests for support by an anti-eviction group, had appeared on social media.

The property was occupied since mid-May and it could not be argued that anyone was being evicted from their home for any reasonable period of time, counsel said.

Mr Sutherland, in opposing the application, said the residents would be made homeless should they be made leave and any such order would affect their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mr Justice Gilligan said the receiver was validly appointed over the property and was entitled to injunctions for possession. He rejected the argument any issues under the ECHR had been raised.

The judge said the receiver had a strong case and the defendants were not in a position to give any undertakings in respect to damages. The balance of convenience also favoured the granting of the orders, he ruled.