Pat Kenny agrees to buy the land in the end.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
Quote from RTE:

"The Charltons said that Mr and Mrs Kenny have agreed to purchase Gorse Hill and they are satisfied with this outcome."

Seems like proper order.

One wonders how long the legal principle of adverse possession will persist - you might recall there was blue murder when the travellers at Dunsink Lane, FInglas got millions for being moved from the lands.
 
I wonder did the Kenny's pay market price for it, or get it for a reduced sum as they were squatters? I am disappointed the courts did not tease that one out. As things stand there is still an incentive for squatters to start squatting on other peoples land.
 
rabbit said:
I wonder did the Kenny's pay market price for it, or get it for a reduced sum as they were squatters? I am disappointed the courts did not tease that one out. As things stand there is still an incentive for squatters to start squatting on other peoples land.
Click to expand...

Courts don't tease things out - they rule on the arguments presented to them. This was never going to be an easy case as both sides held such trenchantly opposed views.
It is unlikely that there would have been any new law created - it was more likely that one side would end up being acutely embarrassed by the final Court Order.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with squatters - it is a perfectly legitimate procedure.

mf
 
I'm not sure why you have a problem with squatters - it is a perfectly legitimate procedure.

mf
Click to expand...

Is there not an element of rewarding nuisance in the case of real squatters (people who actually live where they have no right to live), or allowing someone to take ownership of property owned by another through the use of a technical legal device/procedure.

Surely if I own land then should I do with it as I choose (subject to planning laws, health & safety, environmental laws etc. - i.e. "common good" issues) and only lose ownership of it if I agree to sell (exceptions noted for "common good" reasons like CPO for roads etc.).
 
Hitching the caravan to the hiace and heading to Dublin, heard Pat Kenny has a nice new plot of land!
 
There were a raft of Pat Kenny jokes on the Ray Foley show yesterday
"I left my car outside Pat Kenny's house for 10 minutes - and now he says it's his!"
"I asked Pat Kenny for an autograph and he kept the pen!"
etc.
 
If Pat Kenny thought the land was rightfully his ......... why did he cough up eventually?
 
Ah but you see.............This thread title is misleading because no-one knows what was agreed. It may be a nominal sum only just to make it work. We'll never know.

mf
 
The [broken link removed] sales alone will probably eclipse whatever consideration was actually handed over. :)
 
After Pat's performances in court the Judge has highly recommended Pat for the part of the Bull McCabe in the remake of 'The Field'..........
 
Again I'll quote from the Irish media (for fear my admitted bias should colour the debate)

Todays Indo:

"....€2M by the time he pays legal fees ...." "...it is believed the purchase price of land was between €1M and €1.5M... "


Nobody seems to want to defend the merits of adverse possession (see my post below) - adverse possession being the clear substance of Kenny's claim. If you're a Kenny fan the best you could claim is that he got the land at a knock down price through his use of legal argument - so how honourable is that?
 
The problem is that the paper is speculating. I think what was actually reported was that the land had an estimated value of between 1m and 2m. I don't think they ever said that that was what was being paid. It could be a nominal amount or it could be full value.


"Nobody seems to want to defend the merits of adverse possession (see my post below) - adverse possession being the clear substance of Kenny's claim. If you're a Kenny fan the best you could claim is that he got the land at a knock down price through his use of legal argument - so how honourable is that? "

I think any debate on a private settlement is pointless - we do not know what was agreed - we can only speculate. In addition, only one side of the case ever got aired.

Adverse possession is an extremely useful legal mechanism for dealing with title issues - e.g. farmland where title has long been neglected with generation after generation simply failing to deal with deaths and transfers.

I did not know that this had turned into a debate about whether parties to proceedings had behaved honourably or not - that is a matter of private debate where the issue of defaming someone does not arise.

mf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top