The High Court has refused an engineer’s application to strike out a woman’s claim over alleged defects in an apartment at The Ramparts development in Loughlinstown, County Dublin, despite finding that she had delayed in delivering her Statement of Claim.
Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled on 9 July 2015 that the five-and-a-half-year period between service of the summons and delivery of the Statement of Claim was inordinate and inexcusable. He nevertheless found that the balance of justice required the proceedings to continue against Anthony Lawton, the engineer who had issued an attestation concerning the development’s compliance with Building Regulations.
Sasha Farrell’s proceedings concern Apartment 99. She alleges that defects included water penetration, cracking, damage to finishes and sewage problems. Those allegations are denied by Lawton. The judgment did not determine whether the alleged defects or breaches occurred; it dealt with Lawton’s application to dismiss the proceedings for delay and asserted prejudice.
The summons issued in December 2007 and was served in October 2008. Lawton entered an appearance the following month and requested a Statement of Claim, which was delivered in May 2014. He applied to strike out the case in February 2015, about ten months after receiving it.
The court accepted that Farrell had sought remediation through the developer, Arborlane Limited, which carried out works at its own expense before entering liquidation in July 2009. The judgment said her efforts to resolve the apartment problems and identify those responsible helped explain some of the delay. It also noted that the summons was served within its initial one-year lifespan.
In assessing the balance of justice, the judge cited Lawton’s evidence that his papers “may not be complete” and that the prejudice he claimed was “greater than moderate”. The judgment observed that he had had years to check his records, including a period when Arborlane was still operating, and had delayed bringing his application after receiving the Statement of Claim.
The court declined to make the orders Lawton sought. It directed that Farrell should now prosecute the proceedings with the greatest despatch possible. The ruling allows the claim against Lawton to continue; it makes no finding on liability or on the claims against the other defendants.