The High Court has refused to dismiss a couple’s claim against their landlord over the condition of their Dublin home, despite finding that they had delayed in progressing the case for nearly eight years after pleadings closed.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan ruled on the Iveagh Trust’s application to dismiss Peter Byrne and Angela Byrne’s proceedings on grounds of delay. She found the delay from April 2015 to October 2023 was inordinate and inexcusable, but said the Trust had not established that the balance of justice required the case to be dismissed.
The claim concerns the condition of the couple’s home at 418 Iveagh Trust, New Bride Street, Dublin 8. The couple say damp, mould and cold affected the property, and that a ventilation system installed in 2006 worsened the problems. Their claim for damages is limited to losses from February 2006, six years before proceedings began in 2012.
The Trust denies liability. Its defence says the couple contributed to the problems by blocking vents and heaters and overcrowding the apartment. It says it responded to complaints with ventilation and heating systems, an additional room and other works. Those allegations have not been decided in this application.
The judge was sympathetic to the couple’s explanations for delay, which included the second plaintiff’s ill-health, the death of their son, the illness of their solicitor and a further flooding incident. She said no substantive step had been taken after pleadings closed until the Trust served a notice of intention to proceed in October 2023. The couple’s solicitor then indicated that the case was ready for hearing.
However, Justice Phelan said the Trust had relied largely on assumptions that witnesses would be unavailable because they were retired, elderly or had left employment. It had not shown unsuccessful efforts to locate them or provided evidence that they were unfit to give evidence. The judge also noted that contemporaneous documents, photographs and architectural drawings could help address faded memories.
The court refused the dismissal application at this stage. It directed the parties to cooperate on an expedited timetable and said it would list the matter for mention two weeks after judgment to address arrangements, including case management if needed. If the timetable is not followed, the Trust may renew its application to dismiss. It may also renew the application at trial if the plaintiffs’ delay is shown to have irreparably impaired a fair process.
The underlying claim remains to be heard; the ruling did not determine whether the home was unfit or whether the Trust was liable.