News

Distressed residents are warned they must leave ‘death-trap’ buildings

A High Court judge said he had no option but to order dozens of residents to leave their homes as they are potential death traps due to fire safety concerns.

Several residents looked visibly distressed in court as Mr Justice Garrett Simons told them: “You can’t live there. They are not safe.”

The decision came as one of the residents sharply criticised the receiver controlling the properties and Dublin City Council over its handling of the affair.

In an affidavit, electrical technician Romas Tusla alleged the receiver had turned his back on residents and that the council refused to provide residents with reports so they could carry out works themselves to address the fire safety concerns.

As many as 63 people, and not 40 as originally feared, are now faced with homelessness, according to activists seeking to find them alternative accommodation.

As of last night, temporary accommodation had been found for just two families and five individuals, Patrick Nelis of Dublin West Housing Action said. Most of the residents are foreign nationals.

The north inner city properties – 100, 101 and 104 Seville Place – were owned by Vincent and Catherine Donoghue, but have been under the control of AIB-appointed receiver Stephen Tennant, of Grant Thornton, since October 2016.

Mr Donoghue told the court he has had no control over the properties for three years.

Last week, Mr Justice Anthony Barr granted the council temporary orders requiring residents to leave following a damning report by assistant chief fire officer Richard Hedderman.

In an affidavit, Mr Hedderman said a fire safety notice was served on the receiver in May last year and the council had believed necessary works were being carried out. But an inspection last July revealed the buildings had been allowed to deteriorate.

Mr Justice Simons yesterday continued the temporary orders and rejected pleas from the residents of 101 Seville Place for the order in relation to their property to be varied so they could stay while it is assessed by an engineer and works are carried out to address the safety concerns.

Joe Jackson BL, instructed by solicitor Herbert Kilcline, had argued the orders were a “draconian” measure which rendered his clients homeless.

Conleth Bradley SC, for the council, said the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive was engaging with residents.

But Mr Jackson said Mr Tusla had been told he could not access emergency accommodation as his income exceeds the relevant threshold. He said other residents had simply been given a number to call.

Mr Justice Simons accepted it was “a very unfortunate outcome” for the residents.

“Unfortunately the risk of a fire is so great this court would be neglectful of its duties if it were to allow them to remain in premises that are potentially a death trap,” he said.

He put the matter back to September 24 to give residents “a second opportunity” to put forward evidence in opposition to the temporary orders.

In his affidavit, Mr Tusla said the receiver refused to engage with him or other residents and refused to accept rent after being appointed.

Joe Jeffers BL, for the receiver, said his instructions were that rent was received up to February of last year.

He also said contracts were in place to sell the buildings “as a single lot” to a service providing homeless accommodation to the council.

Irish Independent

High Court proceedings brought against several protesters outside a beef processing plant in Co Wexford have been struck out following an agreement between the parties.

Late last month Slaney Foods International Unlimited Company secured injunctions against persons it claimed had been blockading its premises at Ryland Lower, Bunclody Co Wexford.

The protests are part of the ongoing dispute between farmers and the plants over the price farmers get for their product.

The injunction prevented the six defendants or anyone else who had knowledge of the order from trespassing obstructing, hindering or in any way interfering with access to the company’s premises.

The injunction also restrained the defendants from intimidating or being abusive towards Slaney Foods staff, and visits to the plant.

On Monday Brian O’Moore SC for the company told Mr Justice Garrett Simons that following talks between the parties it had been agreed that the proceedings could be struck out.

Counsel said that his client retained the right to return to court and seek its protection if the need arose.

Solicitor James Staines for the defendants said that his clients were also consenting to the matter being struck out.

The move comes after separate High Court proceedings brought by other beef processors were struck out last week.

Dawn Meats, seeking to attach and have several protesters committed to prison for the alleged breach of injunctions previously granted by the court in respect of two of its plants.

The plants in question were Dawn’s facilities at Rathdowney, Co Laois and Grannagh, Co Kilkenny.

Also on Friday proceedings brought by Liffey Meats, who had previously obtained injunctions preventing protestors from blockading three of their plants were struck out, on consent following an agreement reach between those parties.

irishtimes.com

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board has given the go-ahead to a group of former content moderators to serve proceedings against Facebook in the High Court.

It is understood that more than five former moderators are seeking damages for personal injuries caused by the disturbing content they were exposed to during their employment by CPL in Dublin, on behalf of Facebook.

“The Personal Injuries Assessment Board has commenced authorising the issuing of High Court proceedings against Facebook,” said Diane Treanor, solicitor with Dublin law firm Coleman Legal Partners, who is representing the moderators.

Under section 17 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003, if a plaintiff’s injury consists of psychological damage that would be difficult to assess by the board, it can give permission for the claim to be pursued through the courts.

The former content moderators have undergone medico-legal evaluation by a consultant psychiatrist at Bons Secours hospital. They will claim they are suffering psychological trauma as a result of both the graphic and disturbing content and the working conditions, which they will say fostered a constant fear of failure.

The moderators were among about 15,000 people in 20 locations around the world, whose job it was to decide what content should be allowed to stay on Facebook, what should be left up and marked as “disturbing”, and what should be deleted.

Graphic content
One former moderator, Chris Gray, described witnessing Islamic State executions, murders, beatings, child exploitation and the torture of animals as part of his role.

Compounding the stress was the fact that “you’re in constant jeopardy of making a wrong decision and being penalised for it. That multiplies the stress when you’re looking at difficult content,” Mr Gray said at the time.

He described how the moderation process works: “There are grades of decision making, and if you get it wrong by just a little bit it still counts as a mistake. And that counts [against] your quality score, and you might be fired. You’re not just looking at it objectively; you’re trying to second-guess the system.”

It was reported earlier this year that three former content moderators had launched a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in California. The US workers alleged they suffered from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the repeated viewing of violent videos. The lawsuit alleges that Facebook violated California law, by failing to provide a safe workplace for these workers.

irishtimes.com

The High Court has dismissed a damages action against the Adoption Authority of Ireland brought by a 56-year-old woman who claims she was coerced into having her baby daughter adopted nearly 40 years ago.

The woman sued both the Adoption Authority (AAI) and an accredited adoption agency, Cúnamh, for personal injuries and an alleged breach of constitutional rights arising out of the adoption of her baby in 1979.

The woman, who gave birth when she was 16 years of age, also claimed the authority had failed to ensure that she was in a position to give informed consent to the adoption of her child.

In a pretrial motion, the authority sought to have her action struck out on grounds including that the case was statute-barred and over the lengthy delay by the woman in bringing the proceedings.

It claimed the delay meant they could no longer have a fair trial as a number of critical witnesses to the adoption were either dead or no longer available. The events at the centre of the claim dated back to 1979-80, it said.

In opposing the AAI’s motion, the woman’s lawyers argued the statute of limitations did not apply from the date of her becoming an adult, in 1984 because the woman was effectively not of sound mind as a result of her age and the trauma she suffered.

Her trauma was reopened in more recent years as a result of a lot of coverage of the topic of enforced adoptions, it was further submitted.

Rejecting claims there had been a delay, it was argued that the woman wrote to the authority in 1989 claiming it was an enforced adoption. The defendant was aware from back then that she might have a claim and should have looked into it, it was argued.

In his judgment on Wednesday, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said he was satisfied to strike out the woman’s claim against the authority after finding there was “a real risk of an unfair trial and an unjust result” should the action be allowed to proceed.

He said the absence of relevant witnesses by the defendants would have the effect that a trial could be one-sided and would not meet the constitutional requirements of a fair trial.

There was also a real risk that the judge hearing the trial “would be unable to reach a just verdict” in circumstances were that court would not have the benefit of all the relevant evidence.

The judge said he was also satisfied that the delay in bringing the proceedings, which were commenced in 2015, was both inordinate and inexcusable.

The judge said it would be inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings to rule on the issue of the claim is statute-barred without the benefit of oral evidence and cross-examination of relevant parties.

Underlying merits
The judge added that his judgement was “not about the underlying merits of the case,” but was focused on the two delay-related issues.

The woman’s claim against Cúnamh remains in being.

However, it is understood that Cúnamh has brought a pretrial motion, also aimed at having her action dismissed on grounds of delay, which has been adjourned generally.

The woman claimed that she became pregnant at 15 years of age. The child was born in July 1979 in Mount Carmel Hospital, Dublin, where three days later the baby was taken from her against her will.

She says she went alone to Cúnamh, then known as the Irish Rescue and Protection Society, looking for assistance and accommodation.

She was told it was an adoption service and it was too late for her to object because she had already signed the consent papers.

It is claimed that as a child herself, she was not in a position to give proper consent. As a child, she could have been taken into care or a guardian appointed to protect her interests, she claimed.

She claimed that what happened to her affected her mental health. She eventually coped by blocking it from her mind so that it was not real to her and later married and had two more children.

However, she continued to suffer psychological trauma, panic attacks and sleep disturbance, it is alleged. She claims she suffers from post-traumatic stress as a result of unresolved issues around the adoption.

Her claims are denied and the defendants have argued that she was made fully aware of her rights at the time of the adoption and given ample opportunities to reconsider before she signed the adoption consent form.

The matter will return before the High Court after the sides have considered Thursday’s judgment, next month.

irishtimes.com

A landmark High Court challenge against the State over new regulations that allow for the industrial extraction of peat from bogs has opened before the High Court.

The action has been taken by Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE), which claims regulations introduced last January mean large-scale peat extraction does not require planning permission, and instead must be licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

FIE claims the effect of the new regulations will create a retention mechanism for the unauthorised industrial extraction of peat, and allow it to continue for many years, both unassessed and unregulated. The group argues that the regulations fail to comply with several EU directives on the protection of the environment.

The action is against the Minister for Communication, Climate Action and Environment, the Minister for Housing, Planning, and Local Government, as well as Ireland and the Attorney General.

The defendants, represented by Niamh Hyland SC, oppose the action and reject the group’s claims.

The case is seen as important due to the implications the court’s findings may have on large-scale peat production in Ireland.

FIE seeks orders including quashing the regulations made by both ministers in January of this year.

Irish Independent

An eight-year-old boy who was expelled from a country school after assaulting five members of staff – striking one with a hurl – must be re-enrolled, according to the Department of Education, the High Court heard today.

That decision, in the interests of avoiding serious risk to the safety of other pupils and staff, is now being legally challenged by the school board of management, barrister Joe Jeffers told Mr Justice Richard Humphreys.

The school principal, who stated that the school welcomed pupils with special needs, told the court that the boy, who cannot be identified, was involved in a very serious incident in April last when the boy began chasing another pupil around an empty classroom with a hurley stick. All of the other pupils had been removed from the room for their own safety.

A female teacher, who was trying to reason with the boy, had been punched in the chest by him and when he was removed from the room, he had started kicking and hitting both the principal and the teacher, who he struck in the leg with the hurley.

“It was decided to lock the other pupils back in the classroom for their safety,” the principal told the court. The boy had tried to gain entry by using the hurley and later a baton, punching the teacher in the face when she succeeded in getting the hurley off him, then kicking her repeatedly in the legs.

After attempting to set off the fire alarm he emptied the presses in the hall and threw things around the place. Two teachers, who he had assaulted, had to go to hospital for treatment, one for a suspected fractured cheek bone. The boy’s mother arrived and had taken him from the school.

Mr Jeffers, who appeared with Dublin-based solicitor AJP McDonald, told the court that the school management board had decided to expel the boy both for his own, his teachers’, and other pupils’ safety. It had stood by its decision in an appeal to the board by the boy’s mother.

He told Judge Humphreys a Department of Education appeals committe had overturned the school board’s expulsion decision and directed that the boy’s mother be contacted immediately and that he be re-enrolled in the school’s Autism Spectrum Disorder class.

Mr Jeffers said the school board was seeking leave to judicially review the decision of the appeals committee of the Department of Education and would be asking the court to quash its decision directing the re-enrolment of the boy.

He said the boy had been a pupil at the school for the past two years and had been involved in numerous incidents of gross misbehaviour, having on many occasions assaulted staff members and other pupils.

The school claims that the reasons for the departmental committee having upheld the appeal of the boy’s mother were irrational and flew in the face of fundamental reason and common sense and had been predicated upon errors of law and fact.

Judge Humphreys granted the school board leave to bring a judicial review of the committee’s decision.

breakingnews.ie

IRISH WATER is facing prosecution by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in connection with drinking water problems in Co. Cork.

It faces charges that following a direction given on June 5, 2015 in respect of supply of drinking water at Drimoleague and Kealkill, it failed to submit final reports to the EPA before the end of 2018, verifying that trihalomethanes (THMs) levels were not excessive.

THMs, which can have a can have possible carcinogenic effects if consumed over long periods, are bi-product of chlorination to disinfect ground water which makes its way into the supply.

The case listed before Anthony Halpin at Dublin District Court today.

He adjourned the case for three weeks when Irish Water will be expected to indicate how it will plead, and have a trial date set if the charges are going to be contested.

Online Editors

A leading figure in Ireland’s Muslim community has claimed he was fired from his teaching post in Trinity College Dublin as a result of controversial comments he made during an appearance on RTÉ in early 2018.

The Labour Court heard an appeal on Friday by Ali Selim, a lecturer in Arabic, against an award of €4,000 made by the Workplace Relations Commission that he had been unfairly dismissed by the university last September.

Dr Selim, who is also spokesperson for the Islamic Cultural Centre in Clonskeagh, is seeking reinstatement to his former role as a part-time lecturer at Trinity where he had taught since 2010. Alternatively he claims he is entitled to the maximum award of two years’ salary for being unfairly dismissed which would be worth in excess of €18,000.

The academic, who was represented by the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT), claims Trinity engineered a situation to make him redundant following his appearance on an edition of RTÉ’s Prime Time in February 2018.

IFUT deputy general secretary, Frank Jones, said the college had “contrived” to make Dr Selim’s position redundant after his appearance led to calls by TCD Students’ Union for his dismissal and his subsequent suspension for one week.

The allegation is strenuously denied by Trinity which maintains that his position became redundant as a result of staffing changes within the university.

Prime Time appearance
Dr Selim sparked controversy during his appearance on Prime Time when he claimed female circumcision was acceptable in some cases.

The lecturer subsequently apologised for his remarks and said he condemned female genital mutilation, which is illegal in Ireland, in the strongest terms.

Mr Jones said Dr Selim’s comments on the programme had been misrepresented.

The Labour Court heard that Trinity, in reaction to the controversy, had offered an alternative lecturer to his students.

Mr Jones said some 2nd year students as well as all his 3rd and 4th year class and evening students had continued to attend Dr Selim’s lectures.

The court heard that Dr Selim had subsequently applied for the position of professor of Middle East studies but was unsuccessful.

“The job description was designed to ensure that he was not the best applicant but the successful candidate did undertake Dr Selim’s work,” Mr Jones said.

As a worker on a contract of indefinite duration, he said Dr Selim was entitled to full employment protections but had never been given a written contract and had not been served with minimum notice over his redundancy.

The WRC had awarded him €1,644 for non-payment of notice and €500 for not being provided with a written copy of his terms of employment.

The court heard that Dr Selim had also suffered reputational damage as a result of losing his Trinity post as his media and other work was now “a lot quieter”.

Redundant
Ian Whelan BL, for Trinity, said Dr Selim had proposed in 2017 that his post should be converted into a lectureship but the WRC had decided that such a position should be filled through an open recruitment process.

Mr Whelan said the decision to advertise for the post of an assistant professor in Modern Middle East Studies, which would subsume the majority of classes taught by Dr Selim, was made a month before his Prime Time appearance.

He told the Labour Court that the decision to suspend Dr Selim’s classes for a week was taken “to allow the matter to settle”.

Mr Whelan said the lecturer’s position became redundant after there was “insufficient student interest” in taking up optional Arabic classes in the 2018/19 academic year.

He said the suggestion by Dr Selim that he was dismissed because of his comments on RTÉ was “wholly misconstrued” and “erroneous”.

Mr Whelan said Trinity regarded the reinstatement of the claimant as “wholly inappropriate”.

A ruling in the case is expected in October.

irishtimes.com

The Government apparently proceeded with the roll-out of a €120m swine flu vaccine in 2009 despite being notified of suspected adverse reactions in Sweden.

This is according to allegations made in a landmark case to open before the High Court on October 8.

A young woman, Aoife Bennett, will seek damages from the State and drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) over contracting the debilitating sleep illness narcolepsy after receiving the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix. A further 80 cases are pending.

The vaccine was rushed into service over fears in 2009 of a swine flu pandemic.

It had not fully completed clinical trials and, to get it into service, the Government agreed to indemnify GSK.

The national immunisation programme began on November 19, 2009.

The Irish Independent has learned that, on October 28 that year, the Irish health authorities were alerted to the fact Sweden was recording a number of suspected adverse reactions to Pandemrix.

These included hospitalisations and a number of apparent allergic reactions.

On October 31, 2009, Irish Government officials went on RTÉ to insist that Pandemrix was important to combat the threat of swine flu and was perfectly safe.

However, the public was not informed the vaccine had not completed full drug trials.

Similarly, the public was not informed of the emerging evidence of suspected adverse reactions to the vaccine in Sweden.

The Government has denied liability in High Court actions over Pandemrix.

Plaintiffs are being represented by Michael Boylan and Gillian O’Connor, of Michael Boylan Litigation in Dublin.

Ms O’Connor declined to comment on the High Court action for legal reasons.

“We believe our client has a very strong case but it is troubling to note that the State defendants have spent and continue to spend millions of euro fighting this case for the last seven years – even denying that they owe the plaintiff a duty of care,” she said.

An HSE spokesperson said it had only sought tender applications from pandemic vaccine manufacturers in Europe whose products were licensed by the European Medicines Agency.

The Health Product Regulatory Authority (HPRA) confirmed that: “The Swedish medicines regulatory authority, the MPA, shared… publications made available on its website regarding reports of suspected adverse reactions with Pandemrix.

“As indicated… by the MPA on October 29, 2009, the reporting pattern was noted to be consistent with the types of side effects known and expected to occur with the vaccine.”

GSK said: “Due to ongoing litigation in Ireland concerning Pandemrix, we are unable to comment.”

Campaign group Sound (Sufferers Of Unique Narcolepsy Disorder) was troubled by the latest revelations.

“We are shocked but not surprised,” said Tom Matthews, one of Sound’s founders.

“Sound has always stated that it is not anti-vaccine, and that the Pandemrix scandal was a result of the State rushing to get whatever vaccine it could and that it was acting with the best intentions.

“But we believe it is way past time for the State to finally step up on this issue and to fulfil the duty of care it is morally bound to provide to the children and young adults who have been injured by the State.”

Irish Independent

The High Court has appointed an interim examiner to water firm Celtic Pure which was at the centre of recent product recalls.

The Co Monaghan-based provider of bottled drinking water sought the protection of the court from its creditors due to the fall out from two investigations launched after naturally occurring arsenic in some of the firm’s batches exceeded regulatory limits.  

This resulted in two precautionary product recalls, and a partial closure order being made against the company by the HSE.

The company, which petitioned the court for the appointment of an examiner, said the recall resulted in some adverse publicity for the firm. 

Celtic Pure says it is now in full compliance with all health and safety requirements, and its water is being sourced from other locations.

While the closure order has been lifted, and the source of the contamination has been dealt with, the company’s business has suffered.

The firms claims that its key retail customers have suspended orders, its monthly sales for August have dropped by 75pc and it has incurred some €3m in unforeseen once-off costs. 

The company, which had been very successful until the recalls, now says that due to cash flow difficulties it is insolvent and needs protection from its creditors.

At the High Court on Thursday Mr Justice David Barniville said he was satisfied to appoint Mr Declan McDonald of PWC as interim examiner to the company, which employs 75 people.

The judge said that an independent expert’s report had stated that the company had a good prospect of survival if an examiner is appointed.

If the examiner can put together a scheme of arrangement with the firm’s creditors then the company has a good prospect of surviving as a going concern, the judge added.

The steps identified by the independent expert to ensure it can continue to trade include that Celtic Pure obtain fresh investment so it can restructure its debts and provide future working capital.

Other steps include obtaining the continued support of the firm’s bankers and suppliers, satisfying all the HSE and Food Safety Authority’s requirements and regaining customer confidence.

The judge adjourned the matter to a date in September.

Online Editors