The headline is very odd and could be construed as the Supreme Court having the opposite findings to what it actually did. The owners of Bewleys Cafe lost.
WickerMan111 on
Great news. I love nothing more than popping into Bewleys for a bite and a brew during my morning saunter.
Floodzie on
Well, duh…
Phannig on
Imagine handing your rented property back minus the windows ? Jesus wept.
cedardesk on
They’re amazing windows, the level of detail is incredible. When you see them, you kind of realise modern-day stained-glass windows are nothing in comparison. I was at a wedding in there last month, it’s a genuinely beautiful café/venue.
Suvigirl on
Terrible headline
wrghf on
Perhaps someone with more professional knowledge in the area can illuminate, but I’m surprised it went all the way to the SC when it’s already been litigated in the past that immovable features of a property are indeed part and parcel of the property. Things like windows, murals, frescoes etc have in the past been considered to be fixed, and therefore ownership of them pass along with ownership of the property as a whole.
Bewleys must have felt there were some unusual circumstances here that distinguishes them from prior cases if they felt they had a good shot of pushing it all the way.
8 commenti
Mad that Bewley’s tried to claim ownership.
The headline is very odd and could be construed as the Supreme Court having the opposite findings to what it actually did. The owners of Bewleys Cafe lost.
Great news. I love nothing more than popping into Bewleys for a bite and a brew during my morning saunter.
Well, duh…
Imagine handing your rented property back minus the windows ? Jesus wept.
They’re amazing windows, the level of detail is incredible. When you see them, you kind of realise modern-day stained-glass windows are nothing in comparison. I was at a wedding in there last month, it’s a genuinely beautiful café/venue.
Terrible headline
Perhaps someone with more professional knowledge in the area can illuminate, but I’m surprised it went all the way to the SC when it’s already been litigated in the past that immovable features of a property are indeed part and parcel of the property. Things like windows, murals, frescoes etc have in the past been considered to be fixed, and therefore ownership of them pass along with ownership of the property as a whole.
Bewleys must have felt there were some unusual circumstances here that distinguishes them from prior cases if they felt they had a good shot of pushing it all the way.