Couple could face six-figure bill over controversial Meath property

An application is to be made by Meath County Council for the cost of demolishing a million-euro mansion that was built without planning permission, plus legal costs. The case came before High Court judge David Nolan yesterday, and he agreed it would be best handled by the judge who ruled the demolition should go ahead last March. The legal costs alone could easily run into six figures, with Chris and Rose Murray fighting the council for almost 20 years. The couple had built the 588 sq m (6,220 sq ft) house in Co. Meath in 2006, despite having been turned down for planning permission for a property half that size. Their battle to retain the five-bedroom Celtic Tiger-era house went all the way to the Supreme Court twice, but they were ultimately directed to demolish it. Meath County Council confirmed in mid-March that gardaí had helped it take possession of the property at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, on foot of court orders. Within a few days, nothing remained of the house, and the site has since been restored to its original state. Deirdre Hughes, the council’s barrister, suggested to Judge Nolan that the issue of costs should be heard by Judge Richard Humphreys, who had most recently dealt with the case. This was agreed to by Judge Nolan. Neil McNelis, the Murrays’ solicitor, applied to have a contempt of court ruling overturned. The council had accused the couple of breaching an undertaking they had made to allow the demolition to go ahead. No immediate ruling was made on the application. Mr McNelis also made an application to have access to a portion of the digital audio recording (DAR) from a court sitting on March 19. This was objected to by Ms Hughes, who said he had been in court on that day. She accused him of conducting a ‘treasure hunt’ to find something missing from other DAR recordings he sought. Judge Nolan granted the order for access to the recording and the matters were listed for mention again before Judge Humphreys on June 29. Last week, Judge Humphreys issued a written judgment, in which he sought to set out recent events ‘for the record’. In that judgment, he decried the ‘under-informed commentators scrambling to their keyboards’ who criticised his actions. Explaining why he found the couple in contempt of court, and why he had enforced a Supreme Court order approving the demolition, he said: ‘Because we live in a republic based on equality before the law, the court can’t accept excuses from one person unless it is prepared to accept such excuses from everybody. ‘If housing shortages were to allow circumvention of planning control then there is no planning control. Allowing this development to stand would completely negate democratically adopted planning legislation. ‘People across the country who get negative decisions are expected to comply with those – it would cause not just resentment but lawlessness if they saw other people getting away with not doing so. Anything other than demolition would come with a massive cost to equality before the law and to social cohesion.’ It has been estimated the cost of the demolition – as well as the hiring of security – will be over a quarter of a million euro. In an interview before the demolition, Ms Murray warned the cost would ultimately be paid by the taxpayer. ‘If they think they are going to be sending me the bill they may as well send it to Mickey Mouse,’ she said.