The Supreme Court has set aside an order requiring Homebond to disclose documents in a multimillion-euro dispute over alleged pyrite damage at housing developments in North County Dublin.
Hansfield Developments and related companies sued Irish Asphalt Limited and two associated Lagan companies over aggregate supplied between 2003 and 2006 for homes at Drynam Hall, Kinsealy, Beaupark in Clongriffen and Myrtle in Baldoyle.
Hansfield alleged that the aggregate contained excessive levels of pyrite. It claimed chemical reactions within the infill caused expansion beneath homes, leading to bulging and cracked floors, damaged partition walls and door frames and outward pressure on rising walls. Lagan denied that its aggregate contained pyrite and pleaded that any defects resulted from design or construction problems.
As part of its defence, Lagan obtained a High Court order requiring Homebond, which was not a party to the case, to disclose three categories of documents. These included material concerning similar defects and remedial works at Hamilton Hall in Dunboyne, County Meath, and communications relating to pyrite-induced heave and revised aggregate standards.
Homebond appealed.
Mr Justice Finnegan held that Hamilton Hall was too remote from the dispute. Hansfield had not developed that estate, Lagan had not supplied its aggregate and the judgment records that the aggregate there did not contain pyrite despite an initial suggestion of pyrite heave. The similarity of the physical defects was not enough to make Homebond’s records relevant or necessary.
The court reached the same conclusion about documents concerning revised standards and Homebond guidance. Whether pyrite caused the damage at the three developments could be determined through expert testing and evidence, without requiring Homebond’s internal material.
The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had given no reasoned judgment explaining the exercise of its discretion. It therefore reconsidered the application itself.
Homebond’s appeal was allowed and all three discovery categories were set aside. The ruling concerned access to documents only and did not determine whether Lagan’s aggregate caused the alleged damage.