High Court action by owners of Lissadell

THE OWNERS of Lissadell estate in Co Sligo are seeking an early date for a hearing of their High Court action against Sligo County…

THE OWNERS of Lissadell estate in Co Sligo are seeking an early date for a hearing of their High Court action against Sligo County Council over whether there is a public right of way across the lands.

A substantial sum of money is involved and jobs are at stake, counsel for the owners told Mr Justice Frank Clarke yesterday.

Mr Justice Clarke said he would make inquiries with the president of the High Court in an attempt to secure a date, but in the meantime several discovery issues would be addressed this month.

The owners, barristers Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy, claim the “wrongful” actions of the council in asserting a public right of way over part of their lands has imperilled the viability of the restoration of Lissadell, compromised the value of the premises and reduced the standing of the owners in the community.

READ MORE

Because of the council’s actions, the owners claim they have been obliged to curtail the tourism facilities at Lissadell.

Peter Bland, for the owners, said the council was pleading the routes concerned had been in public use for a very long time. Perhaps the matter went as far back as 1189 or when the Firbolgs walked up and down the avenues concerned.

The court was told the defence would need about three months to prepare its case, and Siobhan Stack, for the council, rejected Mr Bland’s suggestion there was any unreasonable delay on the defendant’s part.

The proceedings were initiated after the council on December 1st, 2008, passed a resolution to amend the Sligo County Development Plan to include a provision for the “preservation of the public rights of way” along certain routes at Lissadell.

Because of the council’s actions, the owners claim they have been obliged to curtail the tourism facilities at Lissadell.

The owners closed Lissadell House, the former home of the Gore Booth family, to the public last January.

The council is also facing a claim for damages for alleged slander of title, negligence, breach of duty and intentional and/or unlawful interference with the owners’ economic interests.