The High Court has ordered the consolidation of two actions arising from allegations that pyrite in building hardcore caused damage at a Ballymun housing development.
Mr Justice Ryan made the order on 11 April 2014, granting an application by James Elliot Construction Limited. The other action was brought by Ballymun Regeneration Limited against the same four defendants: Irish Asphalt Limited, Lagan Holdings Limited, Lagan Construction Limited and Linstock Limited.
The claims concern a development of 124 residential units in Ballymun, Dublin 11. James Elliot Construction carried out the building work for Ballymun Regeneration. The plaintiffs allege that Irish Asphalt supplied hardcore containing pyrite from a quarry operated by Linstock, and that the material expanded rapidly and severely, making it unsuitable for building work. They allege that its use damaged buildings and building work and required substantial remedial work.
James Elliot’s action pleads breach of contract and/or negligence against Irish Asphalt and Linstock. It also seeks declarations that Lagan Holdings and Lagan Construction are liable under guarantees allegedly given to Irish Asphalt, and that Irish Asphalt must indemnify it against certain claims arising from the material. Ballymun Regeneration’s separate action is pleaded in negligence and seeks similar declarations concerning the guarantees and indemnity. These are claims described in the judgment, not findings on liability.
The defendants opposed consolidation. Their submissions included that the cases involved different legal claims and losses, would not produce substantial savings, and risked confusion or injustice. The first and fourth defendants said they might agree to the cases being heard together without consolidation.
Applying the principles in *Duffy v News Group Newspapers Limited* [1992] 2 I.R. 369, the judge found that the cases shared the same underlying factual matrix, the same defendants and closely connected plaintiffs. He accepted that the causes of action and claimed losses differed, but considered the common allegations about the hardcore and resulting damage a powerful connection. He also found that one consolidated action would save costs and inconvenience, and rejected the suggestion that hearing the cases together without consolidation offered a practical advantage.
The court’s ruling was procedural: it consolidated the two actions. The judgment did not determine whether the hardcore contained pyrite, whether it caused the alleged damage, or whether any defendant was liable.