The High Court has refused an application to set aside a third-party notice served by BHK Credit Union Limited on architect Brendan G. Cashell in a dispute over alleged damage to a neighbouring public house in Blackrock, Co. Louth.
Mr Justice Hogan ruled that the credit union had acted “as soon as was reasonably possible” under the Civil Liability Act 1961. He also found that the delay had not appreciably compromised Mr Cashell’s ability to defend himself. The decision concerns only the third-party notice; it does not determine the underlying claims about damage to the public house or the responsibility of any party for that damage.
The plaintiffs, Desmond and Linda Buchanan, own a public house beside the credit union’s premises. The judgment records that they alleged their property was damaged during demolition and refurbishment work in March 2006, and that cracking later worsened. They also pleaded that the premises would need to close for six weeks for repairs. The couple took no part in the hearing on the third-party notice.
BHK retained John Clarke & Son (Ardee) Limited as main contractor for redevelopment work, with Mr Cashell as the nominated architect. The contractor’s defence, delivered in November 2011 but provided to BHK’s solicitors in April 2012, denied that it had responsibility for design, planning or structural assessments and said any loss from interference with the building’s right of support was the responsibility of BHK and its professional advisers.
BHK applied to join Mr Cashell as a third party in May 2012. The court granted leave on 23 July, and the notice seeking indemnity and contribution was served on 9 August. Mr Cashell sought to have it set aside, arguing that it had not been served promptly and that the application for leave had missed the 28-day period in Order 16 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The judge said the 28-day period was an indicative starting point, not a limit on the court’s separate assessment under the Act. He accepted that BHK was entitled to seek particulars, await replies and consider the contractor’s defence before deciding on a professional-negligence claim against Mr Cashell. The motion to join him followed without appreciable further delay after BHK received that defence.
Mr Cashell’s solicitor said the passage of about seven years since construction began could impair his client’s memory and that of potential witnesses. The judge noted that no specific details of the alleged memory difficulties had been provided. He also referred to the project documentation available to Mr Cashell and the earlier request for his files, which could have alerted him that his role might come under scrutiny. The court therefore refused to set aside the notice on the grounds of prejudicial delay.