Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Republic of Property

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:07 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2556
onioneater wrote:
GameBlame wrote:
The whole challenge seems to be an arse covering exercise by a board (probably to distract from their own failures) . They relied on valueless (apparent) assurances about playing fields that were never made concrete with concrete minuted decisions and at the appropriate authority level by of owners.

The question of who is going to pay for their probable failed legal challenge is very relevant. The precedent of magicing up constraints on religious orders land dealings is not something that the (almost exclusively Jesuit educated or Jesuit educating ) High Court judges will start lightly.


To the contrary of the assertion in your first sentence in fact school boards change quite often and the current board were not around when the previous agreements re future use of the lands were made. The current board are acting out of a sense of duty to the school and at considerable personal financial risk to themselves and taking the action has required many many hours, days and weeks of their time. Being a school board member is also an unpaid voluntary role.

Previous decisions probably did rely too heavily on a "gentlemans agreement" but were minuted as I understand it. Anyway all this should come out in court and "proprietary estoppel" is the relevant point of law which I suggest you look up before you speculate on who the likely winner of the case will be. It is amazing that people on here are convinced of outcomes and motivations without knowing anything about the case or about the law.

The point you make though of the interesting crossover between senior judges and various religious organisations is well made.


Hold on a sec. This website is dedicated to educated speculating and comment . And all of your own assertions, while made with great certitude, are entirely unsupported, but I'm not really asking them to be, just pointing it out.

If there was a clear decision (minuted by the landowner at a meeting of the landowner's board not a parent at their board) then there would be no possibility of a sale. But there isn't. Hence the hysterical local reaction.

Arse covering for your predecessors is stil Arse covering. Ask the clergy. They do it too.

I actually have had a Liz Pendens used against me - by a lying madman/freeman type. But I can put myself in the Judges shoes here 'there's a public interest here...let a judge decide'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:29 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 2006
The Brothers are just asserting their property rights.

Religious orders for many years provided free land and buildings for educational purposes in Ireland when the state did not.

Once the state took over funding from the religious orders from the 70s onwards it should have insisted on transfer of ownership. But it didn't.

The Brothers are just asking for use of what is legally theirs. Obstructing it would be an arbitrary breach of their rights.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
GameBlame wrote:
onioneater wrote:
GameBlame wrote:
The whole challenge seems to be an arse covering exercise by a board (probably to distract from their own failures) . They relied on valueless (apparent) assurances about playing fields that were never made concrete with concrete minuted decisions and at the appropriate authority level by of owners.

The question of who is going to pay for their probable failed legal challenge is very relevant. The precedent of magicing up constraints on religious orders land dealings is not something that the (almost exclusively Jesuit educated or Jesuit educating ) High Court judges will start lightly.


To the contrary of the assertion in your first sentence in fact school boards change quite often and the current board were not around when the previous agreements re future use of the lands were made. The current board are acting out of a sense of duty to the school and at considerable personal financial risk to themselves and taking the action has required many many hours, days and weeks of their time. Being a school board member is also an unpaid voluntary role.

Previous decisions probably did rely too heavily on a "gentlemans agreement" but were minuted as I understand it. Anyway all this should come out in court and "proprietary estoppel" is the relevant point of law which I suggest you look up before you speculate on who the likely winner of the case will be. It is amazing that people on here are convinced of outcomes and motivations without knowing anything about the case or about the law.

The point you make though of the interesting crossover between senior judges and various religious organisations is well made.


Hold on a sec. This website is dedicated to educated speculating and comment . And all of your own assertions, while made with great certitude, are entirely unsupported, but I'm not really asking them to be, just pointing it out.

If there was a clear decision (minuted by the landowner at a meeting of the landowner's board not a parent at their board) then there would be no possibility of a sale. But there isn't. Hence the hysterical local reaction.

Arse covering for your predecessors is stil Arse covering. Ask the clergy. They do it too.

I actually have had a Liz Pendens used against me - by a lying madman/freeman type. But I can put myself in the Judges shoes here 'there's a public interest here...let a judge decide'


You are not allowing for a landowner being deceitful and reneging on their promises and outright lying to all and sundry. Proprietary estoppel is just as much a point of law to secure rights as a signed or minuted contract is.

The local reaction to the treachery and bullying of the landowner not sticking to agreements with its tenant has been a calm set of steps based on the legal advice available to the school. A hysterical reaction would have been burning crosses on the lawn of the ERST HQ next door or some such action. Actually thinking about it those sort of steps seem to get quicker results (a la the Irish Water protest saga).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
Skippy 3 wrote:
The Brothers are just asserting their property rights.

Religious orders for many years provided free land and buildings for educational purposes in Ireland when the state did not.

Once the state took over funding from the religious orders from the 70s onwards it should have insisted on transfer of ownership. But it didn't.

The Brothers are just asking for use of what is legally theirs. Obstructing it would be an arbitrary breach of their rights.


There are 2 sets of legal rights at play here, the rights of the religious order to sell their lands and also the rights of the school. If you own land that has a tenant who is spending money on the lands based of promises of ongoing access to the lands (as the school has been doing for many years) then the tenant has established rights under a point of law called proprietary estoppel.

The school doesn't dispute the rights of the CB's to sell a large part of the lands but disputes the right to sell for development those particular lands that were promised for the use of the school as long as the school remains a school. And on which the school and the State has spent significant monies and based investment decisions on - such as the enlargement and orientation of the extended school and positioning of the M&GL Disability unit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:42 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 1532
onioneater wrote:
Not sure if you are being serious or simply trolling.

Serious

onioneater wrote:
1. School and State put in a combined €12 million+ over the last 5 years to improve facilities, to extend the school to cater for more students and to improve and fence the pitches area. A Moderate and Learning General Disability Unit (one of the very few in Dublin schools) was also constructed at the school with outdoor hard court facilities extending into the pitches area to the rear.

2. All this is done based on repeated commitments to the school over the years that a large portion of the pitches area to the rear would always remain with the school. Back around 2008 or so the school had agreed that a sizeable chunk of the lands to the side and rear of the ERST building and behind including some of the current pitches area could be sold. Indeed the area to be retained by the school was even delineated at that time.

The school and state spent this money for their own benefit. The landowner got nothing out of this. this is important as it is difficult to bind somebody to a promise which does not benefit that person.

The question comes down to what 'repeated commitments' means.

If the state spent €12m on the basis of commitments then you can be sure that they got a legally binding agreement in this regard. If such an agreement exists then the State can hold the school to that agreement or else agree to vary the agreement (which they might do to get money for abuse victims). If no such formal agreement exists then it strongly suggests that the state did not require, or rely upon, any such commitment.

The school itself is unlikely to have asked for, or been offered, any legal commitments from the landowner. The school will have wanted the extension carried out no matter what. The school would have nowhere else to build and in any event it will have been spending other people's money for the most part

I doubt that any formal binding commitment was given to the school, and if it were I would expect it to have been produced by now. If the school loses its case then who will foot the bill? Will the BOM and the teachers avoid exposure to legal costs for a case taken at their behest? If not, then they are barking mad to be heading to Court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:09 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
Negative Covenant wrote:
onioneater wrote:
Not sure if you are being serious or simply trolling.

Serious

onioneater wrote:
1. School and State put in a combined €12 million+ over the last 5 years to improve facilities, to extend the school to cater for more students and to improve and fence the pitches area. A Moderate and Learning General Disability Unit (one of the very few in Dublin schools) was also constructed at the school with outdoor hard court facilities extending into the pitches area to the rear.

2. All this is done based on repeated commitments to the school over the years that a large portion of the pitches area to the rear would always remain with the school. Back around 2008 or so the school had agreed that a sizeable chunk of the lands to the side and rear of the ERST building and behind including some of the current pitches area could be sold. Indeed the area to be retained by the school was even delineated at that time.

The school and state spent this money for their own benefit. The landowner got nothing out of this. this is important as it is difficult to bind somebody to a promise which does not benefit that person.

The question comes down to what 'repeated commitments' means.

If the state spent €12m on the basis of commitments then you can be sure that they got a legally binding agreement in this regard. If such an agreement exists then the State can hold the school to that agreement or else agree to vary the agreement (which they might do to get money for abuse victims). If no such formal agreement exists then it strongly suggests that the state did not require, or rely upon, any such commitment.

The school itself is unlikely to have asked for, or been offered, any legal commitments from the landowner. The school will have wanted the extension carried out no matter what. The school would have nowhere else to build and in any event it will have been spending other people's money for the most part

I doubt that any formal binding commitment was given to the school, and if it were I would expect it to have been produced by now. If the school loses its case then who will foot the bill? Will the BOM and the teachers avoid exposure to legal costs for a case taken at their behest? If not, then they are barking mad to be heading to Court.


Depends on what your definition of formal binding agreement is. If a contract was in place then the court case would be about contract law. But it isn't and it's not, the legal case is based on the case law of proprietary estoppel as I have repeated over and over to people on here who have been prejudging the case without any notion of the facts or the core of the dispute. Rights established under this principle of law are no less valid than those established by written contracts.

The State seems to be quite happy to spend money on projects without ownership of the underlying assets - see recent issue of ownership of state-funded development at St Vincents hospital for example. This practice has probably been based on a sense of trust that may have been misplaced, and decades of similar practice, but that is a discussion for a thread all by itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:28 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 9, 2014
Posts: 2039
So the case is being progressed on the basis of Chinese whispers and a sense of entitlement.

I wonder should we expect a higher level of governance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17326
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Am I understanding this right -- the school used land that was owned by a 3rd party for several years without any formal agreement to do so. They then made plans for the school expansion without securing the rights to use the 3rd party land in future.

If that's correct I would certainly hope that the Minister accepts the dissolution of the Board -- if I was a parent I would be calling for their heads based on that level of mismanagement. High time we get some proper governance and management structures in place for Irish schools rather than having the Church appoint people who may be well-meaning but have no idea how to run a lemonade stand let alone a school.

Obviously I feel sorry for the parents but they should have been agitating for change in management a long time ago to avoid stuff like this.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:54 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Dec 2, 2013
Posts: 2556
onioneater wrote:
GameBlame wrote:
onioneater wrote:
GameBlame wrote:
The whole challenge seems to be an arse covering exercise by a board (probably to distract from their own failures) . They relied on valueless (apparent) assurances about playing fields that were never made concrete with concrete minuted decisions and at the appropriate authority level by of owners.

The question of who is going to pay for their probable failed legal challenge is very relevant. The precedent of magicing up constraints on religious orders land dealings is not something that the (almost exclusively Jesuit educated or Jesuit educating ) High Court judges will start lightly.


To the contrary of the assertion in your first sentence in fact school boards change quite often and the current board were not around when the previous agreements re future use of the lands were made. The current board are acting out of a sense of duty to the school and at considerable personal financial risk to themselves and taking the action has required many many hours, days and weeks of their time. Being a school board member is also an unpaid voluntary role.

Previous decisions probably did rely too heavily on a "gentlemans agreement" but were minuted as I understand it. Anyway all this should come out in court and "proprietary estoppel" is the relevant point of law which I suggest you look up before you speculate on who the likely winner of the case will be. It is amazing that people on here are convinced of outcomes and motivations without knowing anything about the case or about the law.

The point you make though of the interesting crossover between senior judges and various religious organisations is well made.


Hold on a sec. This website is dedicated to educated speculating and comment . And all of your own assertions, while made with great certitude, are entirely unsupported, but I'm not really asking them to be, just pointing it out.

If there was a clear decision (minuted by the landowner at a meeting of the landowner's board not a parent at their board) then there would be no possibility of a sale. But there isn't. Hence the hysterical local reaction.

Arse covering for your predecessors is stil Arse covering. Ask the clergy. They do it too.

I actually have had a Liz Pendens used against me - by a lying madman/freeman type. But I can put myself in the Judges shoes here 'there's a public interest here...let a judge decide'


You are not allowing for a landowner being deceitful and reneging on their promises and outright lying to all and sundry. Proprietary estoppel is just as much a point of law to secure rights as a signed or minuted contract is.

The local reaction to the treachery and bullying of the landowner not sticking to agreements with its tenant has been a calm set of steps based on the legal advice available to the school. A hysterical reaction would have been burning crosses on the lawn of the ERST HQ next door or some such action. Actually thinking about it those sort of steps seem to get quicker results (a la the Irish Water protest saga).


1 in 2 of litigants that make it in front of a judge lose their cases. They were both acting on legal advice to proceed. Legal advice that you 'have a case' means little.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel

What strikes me about proprietary estoppel is the allowance for vagueness and lack of documentation. Farmers and their cousins don't write to each other often, don't have the opportunity to make clear what the rights and expectations are. A Landowner board and school board have ample opportunity to clarify things.

An awful lot of money is being spent on this misguided exercise. And the question remains - who is going to pick up the tab ? Because from reading this thread it seems that a lot of money is being spent to ascertain something simple - the school board relied on an assurance from the landowner, but that assurance was never set out in writing by the landowner, and that assurance was never given by someone who had the authority to bind the landowner. Do you get it yet ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 4, 2009
Posts: 1532
onioneater wrote:
Depends on what your definition of formal binding agreement is.

A 'formal' agreement generally means one reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties.

onioneater wrote:
...the legal case is based on the case law of proprietary estoppel as I have repeated over and over to people on here who have been prejudging the case without any notion of the facts or the core of the dispute. Rights established under this principle of law are no less valid than those established by written contracts.

I am not saying that a case has to be based on formal agreements. I am just saying that the outcome of the case is far more uncertain if there are no formal agreements. Given the uncertainty, unless one is able to insulate oneself personally against legal costs, then one would want to have balls of steel (or be incredibly thick or be incredibly badly advised) to engage in high value litigation like this.
onioneater wrote:
The State seems to be quite happy to spend money on projects without ownership of the underlying assets - see recent issue of ownership of state-funded development at St Vincents hospital for example. This practice has probably been based on a sense of trust that may have been misplaced, and decades of similar practice, but that is a discussion for a thread all by itself.

You are making a whole load of assumptions based on nothing there I am afraid. The state has a team of lawyers in the Chief State Solicitors office to deal with property matters and they also engage law firms as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
Luan wrote:
So the case is being progressed on the basis of Chinese whispers and a sense of entitlement.

I wonder should we expect a higher level of governance.


So you know the full extent of the evidence that the school will present at the trial in March? I didn't realize you were on the board or its legal team.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:21 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
GameBlame wrote:
onioneater wrote:

1 in 2 of litigants that make it in front of a judge lose their cases. They were both acting on legal advice to proceed. Legal advice that you 'have a case' means little.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel

What strikes me about proprietary estoppel is the allowance for vagueness and lack of documentation. Farmers and their cousins don't write to each other often, don't have the opportunity to make clear what the rights and expectations are. A Landowner board and school board have ample opportunity to clarify things.

An awful lot of money is being spent on this misguided exercise. And the question remains - who is going to pick up the tab ? Because from reading this thread it seems that a lot of money is being spent to ascertain something simple - the school board relied on an assurance from the landowner, but that assurance was never set out in writing by the landowner, and that assurance was never given by someone who had the authority to bind the landowner. Do you get it yet ?


You don't know the facts of the case, who did what and when. I hope you are not the trial judge with your level of prejudgement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
Mantissa wrote:
Am I understanding this right -- the school used land that was owned by a 3rd party for several years without any formal agreement to do so. They then made plans for the school expansion without securing the rights to use the 3rd party land in future.

If that's correct I would certainly hope that the Minister accepts the dissolution of the Board -- if I was a parent I would be calling for their heads based on that level of mismanagement. High time we get some proper governance and management structures in place for Irish schools rather than having the Church appoint people who may be well-meaning but have no idea how to run a lemonade stand let alone a school.

Obviously I feel sorry for the parents but they should have been agitating for change in management a long time ago to avoid stuff like this.


The school has operated on the basis of leases etc, but you will just have to wait for the full evidence to come to court.

I understand in the past on here you said that your kids may be going to an Educate Together, correct me if I'm wrong. So you have been privileged in being handed your school premises by the State. Well good for you.

However I understand that 94% of the schools in the country operate on premises and lands owned by religious groups. They don't give up ownership easily so in the real world most schools have to live within these boundaries and realities. I am not saying that the school and State operating on the basis of trust in many instances is the right thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Aug 30, 2015
Posts: 464
Negative Covenant wrote:
onioneater wrote:
The State seems to be quite happy to spend money on projects without ownership of the underlying assets - see recent issue of ownership of state-funded development at St Vincents hospital for example. This practice has probably been based on a sense of trust that may have been misplaced, and decades of similar practice, but that is a discussion for a thread all by itself.

You are making a whole load of assumptions based on nothing there I am afraid. The state has a team of lawyers in the Chief State Solicitors office to deal with property matters and they also engage law firms as well.


Well what was the fairly recent controversy invoking the National Maternity Hospital all about then if not the State spending loads of money on a project where it didnt have ownership secured? So much for its teams of lawyers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/exit-of-sisters-of-charity-from-st-vincent-s-a-victory-for-people-power-1.3100779


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Christian Brothers in disgraceful sale of school pitches
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:45 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Apr 1, 2010
Posts: 10409
onioneater wrote:
The CBs accepted the voluntary deal offered by the State (I am sure with advice from that their investment advisors) that capped their liability. When the redress board completed its work the liabilities to victims was much higher than expected so the CBs got off lightly.

When you say "liabilities to victims was much higher than expected" are you suggesting it turned out there was a much greater level of injury than expected that came to light? But you can't be suggesting that as you well know there was no requirement for applicants to substantiate any claims to injury. Therefore nothing came to light, either good or bad. So in what sense did the CBs "get off lightly"? Was it not, in fact, the taxpayer that got hammered by the incompetence of those who set up the redress board with the most barking mad set of terms ever concocted. You offer tens of thousands in redress to anyone who asks for it, and don't require any evidence -- what did you think would happen?

_________________
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" – Niels Bohr


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

    Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Republic of Property

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com