The High Court has refused Kildare County Council’s appeal to have a claim over sewage flooding at a Monasterevin home dismissed for delay. The ruling leaves the underlying damages claim to proceed; it does not decide whether the Council was responsible for the flooding or what compensation may be due.
The proceedings were brought by Edgar John Holmes, who alleges that sewage entered his yard and dwelling in November 2006 because a blockage in the Council’s main sewer was caused or allowed to occur. The Council denies responsibility. Its defence alleges that defective construction of the property’s sewer connection made it vulnerable to flooding, and that sewage rods in drains and manholes had been placed there by unknown people.
Holmes claims about €154,000 for renovation and building work, lost apartment rent and damaged contents. Those figures are claims set out in the proceedings, not findings by the court. The judgment records that he did not have insurance for the property at the time.
The Council sought to strike out the case for want of prosecution, arguing that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and risked an unfair trial. It pointed to faded witness memories and a witness who had retired and might be unavailable. The Master of the High Court dismissed the Council’s motion on 6 December 2016. The Council appealed that decision.
Justice Ní Raifeartaigh divided the delay into three periods. From the start of the proceedings in 2008 to June 2012, progress stalled amid disputes over access to CCTV footage and replies to particulars; she considered responsibility for that stalemate shared. She accepted medical evidence that depression and other personal difficulties convincingly explained the period of inactivity from June 2012 to April 2016, noting that the Council had also taken no steps to revive the case. She found the plaintiff and/or his legal team had delayed inexcusable in responding after the case began to revive in 2016, including in serving replies and responding to the Council’s motion.
Despite that delay, the judge was not persuaded there was prejudice creating a real risk of an unfair trial. She considered the case likely to turn mainly on expert evidence about drainage and sewage systems, and noted that the Council’s experts had inspected the scene and that reports and CCTV footage existed. The Council’s evidence about a retired witness did not explain the witness’s relevance or establish that the witness would be unavailable.
The court dismissed the appeal and refused the requested relief. The claim therefore remains live; the judgment makes no determination on liability or damages.