Occupiers of former pub in Dublin’s Liberties have three days to leave

The High Court has mandated that two men, along with any other individuals involved, must leave a former pub in Dublin's Liberties district within three days. The order follows repeated violations of a previous court directive that prohibited the men from allowing additional people onto the Ardee House property on Chamber Street.

“

numerous breaches

During the proceedings, it was revealed that despite the earlier injunction, numerous breaches occurred, with as many as 40 people reportedly present on the premises at one time. The court issued the eviction order after reviewing an engineer's report that declared the building to be in a dangerous condition and uninsured. Plans are in motion to replace the property with new apartments.

The pub, last operational in 2011, is owned by Black Sheep Investments Ltd. The company acquired the premises in 2016 after the Teeling Whiskey group had purchased it. Black Sheep sought injunctions to compel the two named defendants and any "persons unknown in occupation" to vacate and cease their trespass.

“

our committee

Last week, Judge Brian Cregan modified an earlier injunction, specifically ordering that no members of the public be allowed on the premises pending further court decisions. On Thursday, counsel for Black Sheep, Lyndon MacCann SC, informed the judge of the "numerous breaches," noting the property was being used for social events, including a cafe, poetry workshops, and film screenings, all advertised on social media.

“

tantamount to paralysis of our objectives, our aims and our sense of social justice

MacCann also indicated that the occupation followed a break-in, suggesting potential criminal consequences under the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act, 1971, not only for those who broke in but also for those remaining. Neither Eoghan Lynch nor Sean Doyle, identified as members of the Revolutionary Housing League, submitted affidavits in response to the trespass claim. Doyle, however, read a statement to the court, which the judge characterized as political rather than legal arguments. Doyle argued that complying with the order would paralyze their objectives and sense of social justice, citing the homeless crisis and the failure of the system. He disputed the claim of forcible entry, calling it an "acquisition" of a vacant property and suggesting the building be donated to the community instead of being demolished for unaffordable units.

“

The State has completely lost any kind of morality whatsoever