SEVERAL OF THE occupiers of Apollo House in Dublin city centre are opposing a High Court action brought by Nama appointed receivers aimed at regaining possession of the property.
In a widely publicised move last weekend the building, located on Tara Street and Townsend Street in Dublin, was taken over by activists and offered as accommodation to the homeless.
As a result, insolvency practitioners Tom O’Brien and Simon Coyle of Mazars, who were appointed joint receivers over the building by a Nama-related company in 2014, have launched proceedings seeking to end the occupation and that the property be vacated.
The matter returned before a packed High Court this morning when Ross Maguire SC told the court he was represented four occupiers of the property, including musician Glen Hansard, Brendan Ogle, Aisling Hederman and Carrie Hennessy.
The application, he said, would be contested on grounds including that the effect of the orders sought will render people who have been staying in the building homeless. Counsel also said that they have a sworn statement from homeless campaigner Fr Peter McVerry.
Counsel said that the Minister for Finance Michael Noonan would also be contacted about making some of Nama’s property portfolio available for the homeless.
Counsel also said that claims made by lawyers on behalf of the receivers are “roundly rejected” concerning the accommodation available for the homeless in Dublin and about the state of the building itself.
In reply Rossa Fanning SC for the receivers said the application was not about putting people on the street at Christmas or at any other time. His clients have been in contact with Dublin City Council and the Dublin Regional Housing Executive and are satisfied that there is capacity at other accommodation in the city.
The receivers, he said, are sympathetic to the plight of the homeless but the occupation of the 10-storey former office building – which has been organised by the Home Sweet Home Coalition – is illegal and a form of “political protest.”
The receivers say that there are a number of serious health and safety risks that make the building unsuitable for use as a shelter.
The former office block, they say, was never intended to be used for residential purposes and required extensive maintenance. They have particular concerns over the electricity supply which had been cut and was restored by the occupiers.
There was also a risk of people tripping and falling down stairwells in the building, there were concerns about the building’s water supply and there is no provision for the removal of waste.
The receivers also say that because of the occupation the building, which has been vacant since mid-2015, no longer has fire insurance and that its public liability insurance will lapse in mid January unless the receivers are able to regain possession.
The hearing before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan continues today.
The building forms part of a block due for re-development. The receivers want to sell the property in order to deliver the best possible return for the taxpayer. There are plans to demolish the building and replace it with a vibrant commercial quarter.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say