Irish High Court Hears Squatter’s Claim of Right to Occupy Charity-Owned Property

Dublin, Ireland – A man appearing in the High Court on Friday sought to dispute claims that he has no legal right to reside in a house owned by a charity, despite a judge stating his occupation appeared to be “in flagrant breach of the law.” The case has drawn attention due to the man’s assertion that he moved into the property due to threats from far-right groups.

Anonymity Granted Amidst Security Concerns

Justice Brian Cregan granted the man an anonymity order following an in camera hearing – a private hearing – to determine whether the case should proceed publicly. After the private submissions, the judge stated in open court that he would not grant a full in camera order but would instead impose a reporting restriction, preventing the naming of the man or the property in question. This decision reflects concerns for the man’s safety, given his stated reason for seeking shelter at the location.

Claim of Adverse Possession

The man, who initially declined to identify himself to the court, explained he had been staying at the property for over two years, moving there approximately a year and a half ago after receiving threats from far-right elements. He argued he has a legal right to be there, suggesting he may have “possessory title.” However, Justice Cregan clarified that establishing “squatter’s rights,” or adverse possession, in Ireland requires continuous occupation for 12 years.

Charity’s Position and Legal Proceedings

Barry Mansfield, the barrister representing the charity, indicated he had not yet received instructions from his client regarding the in camera application. Mansfield was granted permission to join the man to existing proceedings against other occupants of the property who had agreed to vacate by the end of February. He also expressed skepticism regarding the man’s claims, stating he did not accept them as true.

Adjournment and Next Steps

Following discussion about the timeframe for the man to file an affidavit outlining his case, Justice Cregan agreed to adjourn the matter for two weeks, acknowledging the man was about to begin a course of study. Despite Mansfield’s objection for a shorter adjournment, the judge emphasized the seriousness of the situation, characterizing the man’s occupation as a “flagrant trespass and flagrant breach of the law.”

The case highlights the complexities surrounding property rights and personal safety, and will likely draw further scrutiny as it proceeds.