An architectural technician who negligently certified the foundations of a Donegal home was liable to its purchasers for economic loss, the High Court ruled, awarding them €278,525 in damages.
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley held that the technician owed a duty of care to the couple who bought the newly built house, although he had issued the certificates to the builder. The court found the certificates were intended for presentation to a prospective purchaser, who would rely on them.
The technician had admitted negligence, but disputed liability to the purchasers and argued that damages for pure economic loss were not recoverable. The judge concluded that the pleadings and related particulars sufficiently made out a claim in negligent misstatement. She also found the case fell within the category of cases identified in Ward v McMaster. Economic loss was therefore recoverable.
The house had unusually defective foundations, laid partly on filled ground. Cracks appeared from 2009 and the building began to tilt. Underpinning work in 2012 stabilised the house. The parties agreed the €129,000 cost of that work, and the judge awarded it. She also awarded €38,525 for redecorating and reinstating the garden, finding those works were a necessary consequence of the underpinning.
The purchasers sought about €277,000 for further work to level the house, including removing the roof, raising floors and replacing fittings. Their engineer said the work was largely needed for aesthetic reasons; the technician’s engineer described the house as structurally sound and the tilt as minor. The judge found the proposed work excessive and unreasonable given its cost, the house’s value and the limited effects of the tilt. She awarded €75,000 instead, reflecting an estimated 25% reduction in value. She did not need to decide the claim for alternative accommodation.
The judge treated chimney repairs separately because of safety concerns, awarding €11,000 for stand-alone remedial work. She also awarded €25,000 for the disruption caused by the intrusive, noisy and messy underpinning work while the family and their three young children remained in the house.
The first defendant, the builder, had left the jurisdiction and judgment in default had been marked against him. This judgment addressed the purchasers’ damages claim against the second defendant, the architectural technician.