RTE NATIONWIDE presenter Michael Ryan brought a civil action against his neighbours at a Wexford court last week.

Michael Ryan, of Killowen House, Dunganstown, New Ross, brought the civil action before Judge Alice Doyle at Wexford Circuit Civil Court, against John Whitty and Mary Whitty, of Dunganstown, arising out of a dispute over a boundary where a row of trees are grown.

Colman Cody, B.L. for Michael Ryan, told the court that what precipitated these proceedings was an issue over the ownership of trees which his client says lie inside his boundary. The defendants are disputing this.

Mr. Cody said that evidence would show that there is a stone wall running along an area and above that on Mr. Ryan's side are the trees. The boundary between the parties is not clearly identifiable on the Land Registry map, but it is apparent from the map that there are a number of trees.

Mr. Cody said that both Mr. Ryan's land and Mr. Whitty's land were originally part of the Tottenham Estate, an extensive estate in the New Ross area. In or around 1939 the estate was subdivided. On the map, Mr. Ryan's land would be shown under Mary Condon who was the previous owner and had received the land during the sub-dividing. Mr. Whitty's father also received land at that stage, and that is now owned by John and Mary Whitty. He also said that the Land Commission map reflected the boundary between the parties.

According to Mr. Cody, Mr. Ryan and his late wife, Ann, who was tragically killed in a road accident, originally came into ownership of the lands in 1977. He said the dispute is between Mr. Ryan and Mr Whitty with no other parties who use the lane involved.

James Browne, B.L., for the Whittys, said the boundary would not interfere with the right of way but it would depend what was going to be done with the right of way. If the laneway was going to be narrowed it would affect farmers who use the land.

However, Mr. Cody said that the right of way or integrity of the

right of way would not be interfered with by Mr. Ryan. That is the first time that this had been mentioned by Mr. Whitty's side. What really precipitated these proceedings was the ownership of trees. There was never any issue raised with the use of the right of way or interference with the right of way.

'This case is not about the right of way as far as Mr. Ryan is concerned. While Mr. Browne has submitted there may be an issue about the tenability of the right of way this is the first we have heard of it. It's inevitable the Judge will have to inspect the lands in question,' said Mr. Cody.

Mr. Cody said that in or about 1977, Mr. Ryan's late wife, Ann, was approached by Mrs. Whitty who had concerns about the trees. Any expression about the trees was ' your trees' and the concern from Mrs. Whitty was about preventing the laneway from drying. Then, around 1989 or 1990, when there was damage done to the fencing by cattle owned by Mr. Whitty, he intimated there was a shared ownership about the trees and fence in question. Mr. Whitty said that every second tree was owned by his father.

However, Mr. Cody said the next event of any significance after Ann's death he thinks was about 1997 when Mr. Ryan was engaging a person to do some fencing work for him. This particular gentleman was approached by Mr. Whitty and an issue arose when Mr. Whitty had expressed the same view about the trees.

It was in July, 2005, according to Mr. Cody, that Mr. Ryan consulted with Solicitor Martin Lawlor. Mr. Ryan had instructed Mr. Lawlor that he had a problem with his neighbour, Mr. Whitty.

He said that matters proceeded slowly and with great care. Mr. Ryan, being a neighbour of Mr. Whitty's, was anxious to proceed slowly and Mr. Lawlor as a result carried out searches.

As a result the boundary was shown north of the laneway and the trees in question were within the boundary of Mr. Ryan's lands.

Mr. Ryan approached Mr. Whitty in or around February, 2007, telling him that as far as he was concerned if there was an issue concerning the trees they were within his (Mr. Ryan's) boundary. He hoped the matter would be rectified but this was not so as Mr. Whitty was very much of the opposite view. As a result Mr. Ryan felt he had no other option but to take the necessary steps.

James Browne, B.L., said this is a boundary dispute affecting a narrow row of trees. He said that when the Land Commission divided the land and gave Mr. Whitty his portion, they put the fence in behind one row of trees. The key to the case, he said, is what happened in 1939 and not subsequent events. Using the Land Commission map and based on that map the boundary is behind that one row of trees. The maps, he said, are not conclusive, but are evidence which the court can take into account.

Judge Doyle said she would visit the site and adjourn further evidence to June 2 when the case will be concluded.