Courts

Dublin man stuck animal skulls on neighbour’s wall in dispute over boundary, court hears

Paul Tully of Kimmage Road West involved in long-running dispute with Gary Delaney and Denise Doorley over boundary between properties

At the Court of Appeal, Barney Quirke SC argued that Paul Tully was the victim of 'a grave injustice' and said the Court of Appeal would 'hear the true story of what has happened between these two parties'.

Barry J Whyte
Tue Apr 9 2024 - 19:38

A Dublin man involved in a boundary dispute with his neighbours stuck dead animals’ skulls on their wall, directed diesel fumes into their garden, shone high voltage lights at their house and made a “malicious” allegation to Tusla, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Paul Tully, of Kimmage Road West, Dublin 12, is involved in a long-running dispute with Gary Delaney and Denise Doorley over a boundary between their home and a house Mr Tully owns in Crumlin.

Mr Tully is appealing against a Dublin Circuit Court decision from February in which Judge Jennifer O’Brien made an order restraining him from “watching and besetting” his neighbours’ house and from “harassing, intimidating and abusing the defendants and their two children”.

In that ruling, Judge O’Brien also ordered Mr Tully to pay €20,000 towards rebuilding a boundary wall between the two properties, and that he should give them an additional €40,000 for “a level of persistence and oppressiveness causing eight years of hardship” to Mr Delaney and Ms Doorley. She also ordered Mr Tully and his wife, Mary Tully, to pay €35,000 each in compensatory damages.

READ MORE

The Tullys had initially taken the case in relation to what they alleged was an encroachment onto their property related to the boundary wall of an extension to the house, a claim that was later ruled out as statute-barred on the grounds of time.

As part of their counterclaim, Mr Delaney and Ms Doorley alleged that Mr Tully had tried to “force them out of their home” with “an onslaught of harassment, intimidation and abuse”.

The court heard Mr Tully had damaged a shared boundary hedge between their properties, installed high voltage floodlights which he directed at their kitchen and their son’s bedroom, and erected nine CCTV cameras, some of which were pointed into their property.

Mr Delaney and Ms Doorley claimed Mr Tully placed a skull on their boundary to intimidate their children; that he backed a truck onto the boundary and left the engine running; that he threw children’s toys and other debris into their garden, and that he placed a “foul-smelling industrial bin directly adjacent to where the defendants’ children play”.

Their counterclaim also noted that Mary Tully made what they described as “a malicious complaint to Tusla and the gardaí regarding the treatment of the defendants’ daughter”.

Tusla later stated in correspondence that “no childcare concerns were established” and that the case had been marked closed.

In July 2023, Mr Tully received a criminal conviction in relation to the harassment and was given a nine-month prison sentence in relation to the matter. The sentence was suspended for two years. Mr Tully has appealed against the criminal conviction, with his case set to be heard in November.

The Tullys are also appealing against the decision of the Dublin Circuit Court. Mrs Tully has appealed the order in full, while Mr Tully has appealed the quantum of the award against him and the order to rebuild a boundary wall.

Representing the Tullys in court on Tuesday, Barney Quirke SC, instructed by Sheehan and Partners Solicitors, argued that Mr Tully had been “railroaded on this case at every turn” and was the victim of “a grave injustice”.

He argued that “the intimidation and harassment was the other way around” and that the Court of Appeal would “hear the true story of what has happened between these two parties”.

Mr Quirke made an application to adjourn the appeal saying that certain expert witnesses were not in the country and that he was “not ready for this trial”.

David Dodd, BL, instructed by Herbots Solicitors, argued for Mr Delaney and Ms Doorley that the application for an adjournment should be refused. “This is a serious case from my clients’ perspective, they’ve been through the wringer, they want finality,” he said.

Judge Niamh Hyland granted the adjournment until April 25th, at which point it will be given a date for full hearing.

LATEST STORIES