[article] Dispute over land for rail line

[Mark Gleeson]

You got to love this

That said this guy seems to have adverse possession, CPO might not apply since the land is not listed in the order.

Dispute over land for rail line

A horse dealer who claims to have used about three acres of land adjoining Clondalkin Railway Station since 1977 is seeking a High Court declaration that he is the rightful owner of the area which Iarnrod Eireann intends to develop as part of a €357 million rail line.

Dennis Dunne has brought proceedings against Iarnrod Eireann who deny he has entitlement to the lands. The company claims they were acquired by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in 1845, and that Coras Iompair Eireann, as successor in title since 1950, is the owner of the lands.

The company says the lands are to be used as part of a railway development involving extension of the suburban line from Cherry Orchard station in Dublin to Hazelhatch station in Co Kildare.

That rail project was sanctioned in November 2006 and works had been lawfully initiated in March last, it says.

It is claimed Mr Dunne knew or ought to have known the lands would be required for the project, which is claimed to have been under consideration for years. He also knew that until the project was undertaken, Iarnrod Eireann had no immediate need of the lands, the company contends.

If the court found the title held either by CIE or Iarnrod Eireann to the lands had been extinguished, then Iarnrod Eireann would use its compulsory purchase powers, it said.

It has counterclaimed for an order for possession of the lands and an injunction restraining Mr Dunne from remaining on the lands or interfering with works for the rail project.

Mr Dunne (54), of Rowlagh Avenue, Clondalkin, Dublin, told the court yesterday that he had found the lands "wild" in June 1977 Ã*nd had placed his horses there after erecting fences, poles and wire.

Over subsequent years, he built stables for the horses and stored hay and feed. He said the local children called him "Dinty" and described the land involved as "Dinty's field".

In June 2006 the stables were destroyed by a malicious fire and he had rebuilt them, he said.

On December last, he claimed, Iarnrod Eireann had attempted to block his access to the lands and animals by erecting a concrete bollard but he continued to gain access.

He told his counsel Mr Seamus O Tuathail SC that, in March last, Iarnrod Eireann entered the lands and began digging up a portion of it and erected a concrete bollard.

His horses were forced into one corner of the field and he was able to use only a quarter of the area he normally had, he said.

Cross examined by Mr George Brady SC, Mr Dunne said he worked on building sites from 1979 until 1980 but had young people working for him at the time who looked after the horses.

He said the fences had cost him nothing and he had never got permission from the caretaker of the station house to pass through the property.

He denied that he had built one of his stables in the garden of the caretaker's grounds.

The hearing before Mr Justice Frank Clarke continues tomorrow.

© ireland.com 2007
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/bre...breaking87.htm

[Colm Moore]

To gain adverse possession, you must dispossess someone else (including a body corporate) of the land and exclude them. Did he do this?

Of course, if I was the caretaker, I'd be seeking my own legal advice.

[Colm Donoghue]

It is claimed Mr Dunne knew or ought to have known the lands would be required for the project, which is claimed to have been under consideration for years. He also knew that until the project was undertaken, Iarnrod Eireann had no immediate need of the lands, the company contends

This seems to be IE admitting they lost the land.
If he put up fences enough to keep horses in, I'd imagine that is enough
CIE shoulda done something before 1989 though.

Like the county council shoulda done something at Dunsink before now too.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Looks like a valid claim to me. Putting up fencing, building stables, all acts of assertive ownership. He's in the money methinks. And I know his SC fairly well he's no mug.

Oh, so he was supposed to know they had some future intention? Thats not good enough to deny him either.

[Colm Donoghue]

How anyone would know IE's future intentions is beyond me. I mean they announce times for the next train and no train shows up almost every day....

[MOH]

Could they not come to some agreement with him where they could use his horses to pull the train when the engine breaks down?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by colmd

How anyone would know IE's future intentions is beyond me.

Why the www.platform11.org forums of course!

[Derek Wheeler]

Originally Posted by MOH

Could they not come to some agreement with him where they could use his horses to pull the train when the engine breaks down?

Classic idea!

Stamp has it right me thinks. A barrister will only take it on if he/she thinks it has a chance. I predict payout.

[byrneeo]

Originally Posted by Derek Wheeler

Classic idea!

Stamp has it right me thinks. A barrister will only take it on if he/she thinks it has a chance. I predict payout.

as a one time land law student i predict the same. though this could go far far away, cos there was an ECHR ruling on it a while back, that adverse possession of registered land was incompatible with the european convention on human rights (registered land being registered, the concern of security of title that adverse possession law is based on doesn't apply, as you only need look at the land register to see who owns land. with unregistered land, to see who owns it, you need to look at the land, therefore adverse possession law can apply). If it's unregistered land, though, as seems likely as it probably hasn't been agricultural land since before the 60's (there were tax incentives and such since then for farmers to register land, so most of it is registered, but most city land isn't, including some of the most valuable properties in the country), i'd imagine your man has a very strong case. I'd guess about 80% chance of winning. He'll probably settle though and buy a stud farm in the curragh (next to the railway line, so he can avail of loadsadosh should they ever need a CPO to four track down there). The barrister and the courts for that matter don't want this to go on too far or it could feck up land law in this country on adverse possession so i expect a settlement soooooon.

i'm glad this wasn't on the navan line, cos then it would never get done. does anyone know if any of the CIE land in the navan direction is currently being adversely possessed, cos i'm sure there are some fellas out that way too looking for a wad of cash if they can get it.

[packetswitch]

Originally Posted by byrneeo

The barrister and the courts for that matter don't want this to go on too far or it could feck up land law in this country on adverse possession so i expect a settlement soooooon.

that was exactly my thought. Shadow-boxing going on now no doubt.

[dowlingm]

I would think adverse possession is what has Irish land law fecked up already.

[Colm Donoghue]

Or maybe the fact some of the land law is written in french by some english lads who were invited over by some yellow belly back in the day could have something to do with it...

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by dowlingm

I would think adverse possession is what has Irish land law fecked up already.

No..... Irish Land Law isnt fecked up. It is very convoluted and complcated which is why you pay me money to sort it out for you.

As for the UHCR ruling, the fact that it is or isnt Registered Title has not had that much effect, the Land Registry (now called The Property Registration Authority coz they've had a lick of paint costing a bit of dough) is still granting title based on AP and so are the courts.

Anyway, this isnt a legal discussion. Anyone hear what happened by the way?

[Colm Donoghue]

Thomas you spelled the 2no(Two) words "Fecked Up" incorrectly as
very convoluted and complicated

Is this what you charge for?

Nope didn't hear anything re. case

[Thomas J Stamp]

No, I charge for legal advice. As i have bemoaned before on this very board if only I could dictate my posts..... Actually I forgot to use the google spell check thing i have, many apologies.