A HIGH COURT judge has discontinued an interim order restraining housing activists from trespassing at the former Ardee pub, a property that has been vacant for several years.

The property at 1-2 Chambers Street in the Liberties is owned by Black Sheep Investments, a firm co-founded by Jack Teeling, one of the co-directors of the nearby Teeling Whiskey Distillery. 

Judge Brian Cregan today told housing activists who said they were representing a group called the ‘revolutionary housing league’ that he had “immense sympathy” for their position. 

He opted not to continue an interim order to vacate the property that was previously put in place by Judge Michael Quinn when the case was heard at the end of May.

However, he put multiple conditions in place limiting the activities being carried out by the housing activists until the case comes before the court again. 

Cregan said that he has seen people who are in housing difficulty, including those who have faced eviction and as a result become homeless in his court. 

He made the comments after Sean Doyle, who is “occasionally” occupying the property, said that they were doing so because they believe that “long-term vacant properties” have to be brought back into use as they believe that the government has “failed” to supply housing, resulting in people “freezing on doorsteps”. 

Eoghan Lynch, who is currently occupying the property full-time, told the judge that he was seeking an adjournment in the case of seven days to seek legal advice, and reply to affidavits submitted by Barrister Ross Gorman, who is representing the property owner. 

Cregan granted the adjournment on the conditions that no alterations are made to the property, and members of the public are not invited in. 

He said that any breach of these injunctions would be a “serious matter” which would be taken “seriously” by the court. 

Cregan further said that if the court ultimately decides that the group are trespassing, then they will be ordered to leave. 

The housing activists who have occupied the property have called it the ‘Ann Devlin Community Centre’. 

In a leaflet handed out by members of the group at a protest last week, the group said that the occupation is a response to “calls for more community spaces for the people of the Liberties”. 

Gorman said that Teeling became aware that a number of “unidentified people” had broken into the property, which operated as a pub from 1999 until 2011, and has been vacant since. 

He added that his client became aware of the trespass after a notice detailing plans to demolish the property, so the site can later be developed for “apartments” was erected. 

Gorman said that the individuals trespassing at the property have been inviting members of the public in, and advertising events such as a “garden party” at the site on social media, and using it as a “community centre”. 

He said that the building had been found structurally unsafe by an engineer, and that his client had concerns that members of the public could be “injured” without any form of insurance being in place. 

Lynch and Doyle said that the engineer’s report provided was “biased” and an “application for demolition”. 

They said that repairs have been carried out and that the room people have been invited into is “safe”. 

Cregan said that Lynch and Doyle have a right to contest that what they are doing is trespassing, but that he has concerns about whether the building is safe, as it would be a “disaster” for a member of the public if they were injured there at present. 

He said that the court deals with cases involving vacant properties regularly but that this is the first time members of the public were being invited into one. 

Gorman said that an engineer had found there were serious structural concerns with the building. 

Judge Cregan said that as part of the defendant’s submissions, they could provide an independent opinion if another assessment was carried out. 

The case is to return to the High Court in seven days’ time. 

Speaking to The Journal briefly outside the court, Lynch said that the revolutionary housing league would meet to consider the injunctions ordered by the judge. 

He added that they will attempt to get a second opinion on the state of the building. 

“It could have gone better but at least we weren’t turfed out,” he added.  

The case is due before the court again in a week.