The High Court ruled that claims by Michael Murphy and Mary M. Murphy over alleged defects in a Waterford house were statute barred. Ms Justice Dunne made the decision on a preliminary issue, rather than after a trial of the underlying negligence claims.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against McInerney Construction Limited over the house’s construction in 1987 and remedial works allegedly carried out in 1996. They also alleged negligence by James A. Griffin, who inspected the property before its purchase and reported in September 1997 that its principal structural elements were in good order, with no apparent defects. The plaintiffs said cracks were visible but their structural significance was not clear until a further inspection in 2000.
The defendants argued that any damage existed by 1997, more than six years before the plaintiffs issued proceedings on 30 September 2004. The plaintiffs contended that time should run from when the latent defects became apparent. The judge rejected that discoverability argument, applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation of limitation law: for negligence claims, time runs from when damage occurs, whether or not it could then be discovered.
The judge said the agreed facts and pleadings did not show that the damage occurred within the six years before the proceedings. She distinguished the case from an earlier decision in which the evidence supported a finding that damage was of recent origin. Here, the plaintiffs’ argument that the defects became manifest within the relevant period did not establish when the damage itself occurred.
The plaintiffs also argued that the defects had been concealed and that section 71 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 applied. The judge held that they had not pleaded or otherwise properly raised that basis, and that there were no facts before the court to support it.
The court therefore held the claims statute barred. The judgment records that the plaintiffs had already conceded that their contract claim against Griffin concerning the 1997 inspection was time barred. The preliminary ruling did not determine the underlying allegations of negligence as a trial finding.