The High Court has refused an engineering firm’s application to set aside third-party notices in a dispute over alleged damage to a Dalkey home during building works at an adjoining property. The ruling leaves the claims against the firm within the main proceedings; it does not decide who caused the damage or whether any defendant is liable.
The case was brought by Ronald Robins over damage alleged at No. 2 Sorrento Terrace, adjoining No. 1, where works began around 2001. The judgment says the plaintiff initially raised concerns about dust, vibration and noise, and later alleged continuing cracks and problems with structural support. Those are claims in the underlying action, not findings made on these motions.
The builder and the architects sought to bring O’Connor Sutton Cronin & Associates Limited into the case, alleging professional negligence in its structural engineering advice. The firm applied to set aside their notices, arguing that the notices did not meet the requirements of the Rules of the Superior Courts and were not served “as soon as is reasonably possible” under section 27 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.
The judge considered the timing separately for the builder and the architects. For the builder, an expert report in March 2008 could not identify the cause of the cracking. The judgment says the builder’s experts reached a definite view linking the cracking to alleged structural design flaws only in an addendum report dated 11 December 2008. The judge found it reasonable to await replies to particulars and then seek advice. The builder’s motion for permission to serve a notice issued on 4 February 2009; the notice was served on 11 March. The court held it was served as soon as reasonably possible.
The architects had pleaded in July 2008 that they might seek an indemnity from third parties, but the judge said that general pleading did not establish they then had enough information to make a responsible professional-negligence allegation. The court accepted that they could take their timing from the builder’s investigation and affidavit. It also rejected the engineering firm’s claim of specific prejudice relating to a potential witness whose whereabouts were unknown, noting the architects’ willingness to admit relevant photographs and evidence of the firm’s involvement in the project.
The court refused the application to set aside the notices in favour of both the builder and the architects. The underlying action and the allegations against the parties remained unresolved by this decision.