Couple sue over building work for Luas rail lines

A Dublin couple have secured a temporary High Court order restraining two companies, while building the Luas rail lines, from…

A Dublin couple have secured a temporary High Court order restraining two companies, while building the Luas rail lines, from trespassing on their lands or interfering with trees on those lands.

John and Martina O'Hanlon, Balally Drive, Dundrum, have brought proceedings against AMB Joint Ventures Ltd, Red Cow Roundabout, Naas Road, Dublin, and The Railway Procurement Agency (RPA), Parkgate Business Centre, Parkgate Street, Dublin. The interim order is returnable to Thursday.

The O'Hanlons say their property runs down to the old Harcourt Street line which is being upgraded to accommodate the new Luas line. They understood their house was constructed around 1963 at the same time as the abandonment of the Harcourt Street line.

In an affidavit presented by Mr James Dwyer SC, Ms O'Hanlon referred to correspondence with AMB. On March 7th last, her solicitors had contacted AMB as a result of works being carried out at the rear of the plaintiffs' property. The work rendered their property unsafe and dangerous and left their lands in a precarious position, she said.

READ MORE

One of the trees had suffered major soil erosion and was clinging to the bank by its roots. Due to heavy rains, they were also concerned that a landslide might occur. No satisfactory response was received and the solicitors wrote again to RPA on March 12th last.

Following further correspondence, AMB said it had discussed the situation with RPA which informed AMB that, as some of the O'Hanlons' garden was within the Light Rail Order Boundary, some trees and a portion of their garden would need to be removed. The letter further stated that, following the completion of the works by AMB, the plaintiffs could purchase their garden from RPA's property department.

Ms O'Hanlon said the portion of land over which RPA now claimed ownership had been acquired by their predecessor in title by way of adverse possession and because the lands had been in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs' predecessors in title since about 1963. It was the plaintiffs' claim that those lands were transferred to them when they purchased the lands in November 1998.