submissions from citizens and sought legal advice on access to the land. On a motion put by Councillor Joe Leonard in December 2008, the council voted unanimously to preserve public rights of way that the council contended existed on the estate. This motion began the procedure to vary the County Development Plan to include the four roads through the estate. In response, the Walshes announced the house's closure on 8 January 2009 due to the dispute with Sligo County Council. First judgement The owners instituted legal proceedings against the council claiming that there are no dedicated public rights of way over the estate and the council counterclaimed, asserting public rights of way over the four main avenues. The owners indicated that they would not be reopening Lissadell if the council won the court action. In Ireland a right of way can be established if there has been a dedication by its owner to the public and secondly, if the public has accepted this dedication. In the absence of an express dedication, one must be inferred from the behaviour of the owner. General rights of way can also be asserted by use "since time immemorial". In order to infer whether a dedication existed, the case focussed on the erection and subsequent removal of a barrier in 1993 by Sir Josslyn, apparently to keep out New Age Travellers. The High Court judge (McMahon J) decided on the fact that no objection was made by Sir Josslyn to its subsequent removal by locals, that this showed that he regarded the rights of way as belonging to the public. The 58-day-long hearings ended in June 2010, with judgement upholding the council's claims over the avenues. Legal costs for both sides at this stage were estimated at €6 million. The grounds remained closed. Appeal The Walsh-Cassidys then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ireland. They claimed that Justice McMahon had "made a fundamental error" in his ruling arguing that he "had erred in converting evidence about use since the 1950s of four routes in the 410-acre estate into an effective presumption about, and significant extension of, the law governing rights of way". The case hinged again on whether a dedication of right of way had been intended by the previous owners of Lissadell. This time the 1993 incident was interpreted to imply that Sir Josslyn saw the avenue as his to block and only relented