Neighbours threatened with ‘Trump solution’ reach agreement on fences

Dublin neighbours had been urged by judge to try settle boundary dispute

  Evelyn Malone (95), who lives at No 72 Dublin Road, Sutton, Dublin 13. File photograph: Courtpix

Evelyn Malone (95), who lives at No 72 Dublin Road, Sutton, Dublin 13. File photograph: Courtpix

 

Neighbours in Sutton, Dublin, who have been warring over boundary lines between their properties, have reached almost full agreement on their land division problems, the Circuit Civil Court was told on Monday.

Earlier this month Judge Jacqueline Linnane who threatened to impose “a Trump solution” by ordering the building of a wall between the neighbours urged them to think of the spiralling legal and engineering costs involved and to try to settle their boundary disputes.

On that date the court heard Begona Alvarez O’Neill and Lucita Pascual Sanmiguel, of 73 Dublin Road, Sutton, were being sued by their neighbours to the left and right – Evelyn Malone (95), who lives at No 72, and Gerard Giblin and Collette Walsh who live at No 74.

Mrs Malone, a widow, who was helped into the Circuit Civil Court in a wheelchair, claimed Ms O’Neill was responsible for having 30m of a hawthorn hedge separating their properties removed in 2015.

She alleged Ms O’Neill placed plant boxes and a pergola on her property and sued for damages for personal injury and trespass together with court declarations. Mr Giblin and Ms Walsh sued Ms O’Neill and Mr Sanmiguel for €75,000 damages for trespass and nuisance and were seeking restraints against further trespass.

Numbers 72, 72 and 74 Dublin Road, Sutton, Dublin 13. Photograph: Courtpix
Numbers 72, 72 and 74 Dublin Road, Sutton, Dublin 13. Photograph: Courtpix

Barrister Andrew Walker, for artist and B&B owner Ms O’Neill and her mother Ms Sanmiguel, told Judge Linnane on Monday that while the boundary with her neighbours Mr Giblin and Ms Walsh had been agreed, there was a limited outstanding fence replacement issue remaining.

Judge Linnane, accepting a written agreement between the parties, said she would adjourn for trial the outstanding matter of what might be constructed on part of the boundary until next month.

Gavin Mooney SC, for Ms Malone, had earlier told the court the boundary dispute with Ms O’Neill and Ms Sanmiguel was further complicated by the fact that Ms O’Neill had brought High Court proceedings against three Travellers and three daughters of Ms Malone alleging assault and battery.

Ms O’Neill personally has sued Traveller business brothers Gerry, Michael and Jimmy Connors and Elaine, Jacqueline and Ruth Malone alleging that, in late August 2018, she had been assaulted by them and agents of the Malone sisters as she, Ms O’Neill, attempted to stop part of a boundary fence being removed.

He said that in the ongoing High Court proceedings an agreement had been reached with the Malones that there would be no interference or varying of the boundary between them and Ms O’Neill until the High Court assault proceedings had been determined.

Mr Mooney said that since the last Circuit Court hearing in the boundary dispute between Evelyn Malone and Ms O’Neill and Ms Sanmiguel their engineering representatives had met and measured and marked the boundary between them, to which the parties had agreed.

Judge Linnane, adjourning the boundary issues, directed that solicitors for all three parties exchange letters confirming what had been agreed and what particular issue remained outstanding.