A judge has thrown out a case against a Dublin woman (90) who faced a €1,500 legal bill for having an unauthorised satellite dish on the front of her house.
Anne Rudd, a great grandmother from St Enda’s Road, Terenure, was summonsed by Dublin City Council which had sought an order for legal costs.
Mrs Rudd’s lawyers argued it would be unfair if she had to pay the expenses, which were reduced from €2,100 to €1,500 by the council.
Judge John O’Neill dismissed the case, saying it was a substantial bill and he was not going to order her to pay costs due to exceptional circumstances.
Following the verdict, Mrs Rudd stood outside the courthouse with her daughters Anne Claxton and Teresa Davey and her son Peter Rudd and told reporters “justice has been done”.
“I have had my family around me, there are women and men who have nobody. It was an oversight,” she said.
Mrs Rudd said she was shocked by the attention she had received following the initial hearing. “I could not believe it, me, little me, Australia, England, Wales, San Diego in California, people offered things. Bunches of flowers, money was sent and I gave it to charity. In Wales a man wanted to start up a fund.”
Ms Claxton thanked the public for their good wishes as well as Judge O’Neill, the legal team and the news media.
Mrs Rudd was accused at Dublin District Court of failing to comply with an enforcement notice issued on May 28th last telling her she had to remove “the unauthorised satellite dish” along with all associated fixtures and fittings from the facade of her house under Section 154 of the Planning and Developments Acts.
James Cosgrave, a planning enforcement officer with the council, had told the court he spoke to Mrs Rudd in March and told her the dish could not be fixed to the front of her home. She was given until the end of June to move the dish.
Mr Cosgrave gave her more time to remove it but that had not been done by the time of his next inspection, on July 21st, after which proceedings commenced
Solicitor Michael Quinlan, prosecuting, said Mrs Rudd had been told then that something had to be done. The proceedings were a result of non-compliance.
Her family told the court last month that their mother would not have known what the letter pertained to but they later learned it was official and arranged to have the dish taken down.
Court proceedings had been initiated by then. Her daughters told the council last month that €1,500 could be paid.
The case resumed yesterday and this time Mrs Rudd was represented by barrister Peter Maguire (instructed by Thomas Loomes and Company solicitors). They had wanted to help, free of charge, and Ms Rudd did not seek legal aid.
Mr Maguire argued that it was unfair to ask the pensioner in receipt of €230 a week to pay a legal bill she could not afford.
He said regulations stated that in exceptional circumstances such as these, the judge has discretion in relation to making an order for costs and is not solely a “mouthpiece of the law”.