The High Court has refused an application to pause proceedings brought by the owners and operators of Douglas Village Shopping Centre over a major 2019 car park fire. It directed that those proceedings and a related set of claims by retail businesses should be managed together and proceed towards a joint trial on liability.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Denis McDonald on 11 March 2021, concerns the fire at the Cork shopping centre on 31 August 2019. A vehicle driven by Ms Nagham Mohsen caught fire in the centre’s car park, and the blaze spread to other vehicles, the car park and the shopping centre.
Avoncore Limited and Canmont Limited, trading as Douglas Village Shopping Centre, allege that defects in the vehicle’s heating and ventilation system caused the fire. They also allege that the defendants acted too slowly in investigating fires involving the vehicle model and that recall programmes were defective. Their pleaded claim says their losses will exceed €30 million. The defendants deny that the vehicle had a defect or that a defect caused the fire. They also make allegations concerning Ms Mohsen and the shopping centre’s own responsibility. These are disputed claims, not findings in this judgment.
The moving defendants sought a stay so that the related Callistoy proceedings, brought by five businesses occupying retail units, could be determined first. They argued that this would avoid duplicated evidence, costs and court time. The shopping centre companies, Ms Mohsen and other parties opposed the stay, arguing that the overlapping issues could be managed together. The Callistoy businesses took a neutral position on the application.
Applying principles from an earlier case on managing related litigation, Mr Justice McDonald concluded that a stay was not justified. He said both sets of proceedings had reached broadly similar stages and shared central issues, particularly the cause of the fire. Staying either case could also risk injustice if the case allowed to continue settled or stalled.
The court refused the stay and directed that both cases continue to be case managed together and proceed towards a single, structured trial of their common liability issues. Quantum—the amount of any damages—will most likely be addressed separately for each set of plaintiffs later. The court did not decide the cause of the fire or liability, and it did not set the final sequence for trial; the parties are to confer on that after the issues are clarified through pre-trial steps.
The judge’s provisional view was that the application costs should be costs in the cause, meaning they would be dealt with as part of the eventual outcome. Parties could seek a different costs order within 14 days.