Residents given additional time to vacate properties

A High Court judge has given over 20 people found in contempt of court for refusing to leave two Dublin buildings additional time to vacate the properties.

Mr Justice Mark Sanfey ruled earlier this month that the occupants of 31 Richmond Avenue, Fairview, and 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 2 were in contempt of court orders directing them to vacate the properties.

Some of the occupants, a group of approximately 21 people including young children, had claimed to have been living there for 15 years.

The matter returned before the court on Monday to see what progress had been made by the occupants in their obligation to vacate the buildings.

Rossa Fanning SC for Pepper Finance Corporation, which holds the security of the buildings, said that little or no progress had been made.

Counsel said that while it was accepted that parties were on holidays in August, his side had sought information from the respondents’ lawyers, but had not received any meaningful response.

His client was being “completely stonewalled” in its attempts to bring the matter to finality, he said.

In reply, John Kennedy SC, Rory Kennedy Bl and George Burns Bl for the occupants asked the court to adjourn the matter for a number of weeks, so that they could give the court a complete picture of their clients’ intentions.

Some had left

It was understood that some of the occupants had left, however it was not possible at this stage to give the court complete account of all their respective client’s individual situations and intentions for reasons including people taking holidays.

Some of their clients had also been in contact with agencies that work with homeless persons, the court also heard.

Mr Justice Sanfey said he was prepared to further adjourn the matter to early October, rather than make any orders at the current time.

He said that before the matter returns, he wanted the respondents’ solicitors to reply to questions put to them by Pepper, and furnish them with details including who remains in the properties.

The judge, who acknowledged that people may have gone on holidays during the month of August when his judgement was delivered.

However, contempt proceedings are “extremely serious”, and the judge was keen that the residents would be fully advised about his judgement by their lawyers.

‘Move very quickly’

If people remained in the buildings when the proceedings return before him, he said that matters “would move very quickly”, he said.

The judge said that if required the court was prepared to make orders for the attachment and committal to prison of anyone who continued to defy the court’s orders in early October.

Last November the High Court made orders in favour of Pepper Finance Corporation DAC requiring the occupants to vacate the properties. Arising out their failure to leave Pepper has said it wants orders for attachment – arrest — of those respondents represented in court for the purpose of being brought before the court.

Businessman Jerry Beades is the registered owner, but not an occupant, of the mortgaged properties at 31 Richmond Avenue, Fairview, and 21 Little Mary Street, Dublin 2, both made subject of High Court possession orders in 2008, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

The possession orders arose from default on loans made by IIB Bank and sold, respectively, to KBC Bank, Beltany Property Finance and, last August, to Pepper.

Pepper claims some €2.3million is outstanding on the loans and, as a result of the possession orders, the occupants, who include a number of Romanian nationals and two young children, cannot rely on lease or rental agreements between them and Mr Beades.

While some occupants claim to have paid rent over years to Mr Beades, there is no evidence, since the possession orders were made, that Mr Beades has paid rent to anyone, including Pepper, the Court was previously told.

In his ruling earlier this month on whether the occupants are in contempt of court Mr Justice Sanfey said that the occupants are in deliberate breach of valid orders made last November, to vacate the properties.

The Judge accepted that the residents have been caught in the middle between the plaintiff and Mr. Beades.

They had been living in the properties and discharging “rent” to Mr. Beades as it fell due, oblivious to the fact that an order for possession of the properties had been granted against Mr. Beades as long ago as 2008.” he said.

The court also noted the difficulties that the occupants found themselves in, and their inability to secure alternative accommodation due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The occupants claimed that they would be made homeless if they leave.

However, the court held that there was no basis in law upon which the occupants could establish a right to remain in either building, and that they must vacate both properties.