Alleged squatter seeks to dispute claim he has no legal right to be in property

The man told the court he had moved into this particular property 'because of a threat from the far right'

When the case was first called, the man declined to give his name to the judge saying he wanted the in-camera application to be heard first. He gave it when the judge insisted he had to do so.

A man who a judge said appeared to be squatting in a house owned by a charity, "in flagrant breach of the law", told the High Court he wants to dispute the claim that he does not have a legal right to be there.

On Friday, Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted him an anonymity order after an in-camera, or private, hearing into why the case should be held otherwise than in public. The man later told the court he had moved into this particular property "because of a threat from the far right".

After he made his submissions in private, the judge said in open court he had decided he would not grant an in-camera order but would place a reporting restriction on the case which means the man or the premises he is in cannot be named.

The charity's barrister, Barry Mansfield, said earlier he had not been able to get instructions from his client in relation to the in-camera application.

When the case was first called, the man declined to give his name to the judge saying he wanted the in-camera application to be heard first. He gave it when the judge insisted he had to do so.

Mr Mansfield was given permission to join the man to proceedings against others in occupation of the property who had agreed to move out by the end of February.

The man told the court he first began staying in the property more than two years ago. He said he lived at a different address and then moved to this property about a year and a half ago because of the threat from the far right.

Asked by the judge if he moved in with the consent of the charity which owns it, he disputed that he did not have a legal right to be there.

"It has been my home at one time or another for the last two years and for the majority of that time it is where I stored all my belongings", he said. He believed he and others there would have "possessory title".

The judge told him in order to have adverse possession (or squatter's rights), he would have to be there for 12 years.

The man agreed but said "at the moment, it has not been established".

The judge told him there was no proportionality test in such cases and there did not have to be a full trial for a court to grant an order which remains in force until any such hearing.

Following exchanges over how much time the man needed to file an affidavit making his case. the judge agreed to adjourn for two weeks after the man said he was about to start a course.

Mr Mansfield objected and wanted a shorter adjournment. He also said he did not accept anything the man said was true.

The judge said in circumstances where the man was "essentially squatting", he would hear the matter in a fortnight "This appears to be a flagrant trespass and flagrant breach of the law", he added.