Site developers deny trespass on Celbridge land

A property development company yesterday accused another of trespass on its lands in Co Kildare in order to secure access to …

A property development company yesterday accused another of trespass on its lands in Co Kildare in order to secure access to a £160 million housing project which was "effectively landlocked".

Mr John McGee, managing director of McGee Celbridge Ltd with registered offices at Upper George's Street, Dun Laoghaire, told the High Court that Portinscale Ltd with registered offices in Douglas, Isle of Man, had been given permission by An Bord Pleanala for a development on land owned by Portinscale near Celbridge, Co Kildare.

But a condition attached to the permission stipulated that Portinscale must construct the Celbridge relief road from the Clane road to the boundary of Portinscale's land, which was also the boundary with his company's lands.

At the time of the obtaining of permission, however, Portinscale was not in a position to complete the road. Portinscale was therefore "effectively landlocked".

READ MORE

But last October Portinscale and a second defendant company, Liffey Developments Ltd, with registered offices at Gibraltar House, Naas Road, Dublin, had arrogated unto themselves an entitlement to break down boundaries and commence an unauthorised development.

McGee Celbridge Ltd is claiming that Portinscale and Liffey Developments trespassed on its lands at Aghards, Celbridge, on October 29th and 30th last year. McGee claims the defendants, using an excavator, demolished and removed the boundary between the respective lands and removed a sign erected by McGee giving directions to a nearby development.

The company is seeking a declaration that the defendants trespassed and caused a nuisance on its lands. It also wants an order restraining the defendants from doing so and damages for nuisance and/or trespass.

Portinscale and Liffey deny their conduct constituted a trespass or nuisance and say their actions were carried out on part of the plaintiff's land which constituted a public road. They also claim the sign erected by McGee was an unauthorised development and constituted a nuisance which they were entitled to abate.

The hearing before Mr Justice McCracken continues today.