The High Court has ordered the builders of a Saggart home to carry out extensive remedial works, including removing its roof, after finding that poor workmanship caused a mould problem in the attic.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2017, Mr Justice Binchy directed that the works be completed within two months under the supervision of an engineer or architect agreed by the parties, or appointed by the President of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland if they could not agree. The appointed professional is to decide which contaminated materials can be remediated and reused and which must be removed and disposed of. The defendants must carry out the works directed, in accordance with building regulations.
The case concerned Shane and Antoinette O’Reilly’s purchase of a house at 19 Millrace Crescent, Saggart, under a building agreement completed in September 2005. They initially sought to rescind the contract but abandoned that claim at the end of the trial, pursuing damages instead. The court did not award general damages. It ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs’ reasonable rental costs for alternative accommodation, with payment due when the remedial works are complete.
The plaintiffs reported numerous defects, including leaks, ventilation problems and mould. Their experts identified mould in the attic and bedrooms and raised concerns about possible effects on the children’s health. The defendants accepted that defects requiring repair existed and had agreed to works valued at about €19,444, but disputed that the roof needed replacement. Their experts said ventilation and dampness could be addressed and the attic treated without removing the roof.
The judge concluded that the mould resulted from very poor workmanship in attic ventilation and the failure to insulate a pipe from the en suite bathroom. He considered that some contaminated areas might not be accessible to treatment and that the plaintiffs should be able to return without doubts about residual spores. Replacing the roof was, he said, a reasonable way to put them in the position they should have been in from the outset.
The court acknowledged that not all delay was attributable to the defendants. It nevertheless found that the plaintiffs had to bring the case to a conclusion to obtain the remedy ordered. Their rental costs were allowed, while their request for general damages was refused in light of the other relief granted. The judgment also noted that separate proceedings had been issued on behalf of the children and made no findings in those proceedings.