The High Court has refused two applications by Hendrick Ryan and Associates Limited (HRA) to strike out third-party notices issued by Mount Juliet Properties Limited in proceedings over alleged construction defects at The Walled Garden, Mount Juliet, Co. Kilkenny.
The motions concerned claims brought by John O’Sullivan and Brenda O’Keeffe, and by John and Mary Enright. HRA, a civil and structural engineering firm, argued that Mount Juliet had delayed unreasonably in joining it and that the delay caused prejudice. Mount Juliet said it acted as quickly as reasonably possible after obtaining expert advice about potential structural issues.
The dispute arose from claims seeking, among other relief, specific performance of remedial work or damages. Mount Juliet sought to bring HRA into the cases to pursue indemnity or contribution. The court’s decision addressed only whether the third-party notices should be set aside; it did not determine whether HRA was negligent or liable for any defects.
Mount Juliet said its earlier consultants had not provided a basis to join HRA. It relied on advice from consulting engineers WYG in June 2010 about a possible design issue involving balcony concrete, precast units and the support angle shown on HRA’s drawings. Punch Consulting Engineers later advised that HRA should be joined, and clarified its advice in December 2010. HRA disputed Mount Juliet’s explanation for the timing and relied on earlier correspondence and investigations as evidence that the potential claim should have been pursued sooner.
The notices were served on 5 July 2011 in both cases. In the Enright proceedings, the court had extended the time for service on 27 June. In the O’Sullivan proceedings, leave to serve was granted on 23 May. HRA relied in part on the fact that Mount Juliet settled with the O’Sullivan plaintiffs the following day, before the notice was served.
Justice Roderick Murphy reviewed the chronology and the requirement under the Civil Liability Act 1961 that a contribution notice be served as soon as reasonably possible. He found that some of the delay, including the period after Punch’s advice, was not entirely explained. However, he also considered the need to obtain appropriate expert advice, the purpose of resolving related claims within the same proceedings and the orders already made extending time.
The court refused both applications to strike out the notices. That ruling leaves the third-party claims in place; it does not decide their merits.