The High Court has found a GAA club liable in nuisance and negligence after works on its playing grounds contributed to flooding at a neighbouring house in Foxrock, while reserving damages and other remedies for a later stage.
In a judgment delivered on 27 April 2010, Mr Justice John MacMenamin found that levelling work carried out in 1998 raised land behind the house known as Wendell and foreseeably worsened drainage towards the property. The plaintiffs, Nigel and Frances Grennan, had brought proceedings against Liam O’Flaherty and Gary Ryan as nominated representatives of Kilmacud Crokes G.A.A. Club.
The court heard that the garden flooded severely in December 2000 and again in February 2002. The judge found that water flowed from the club’s lands into the garden and that the 1998 work had raised the ground by up to a foot relative to the garden. He said the club knew, or ought to have known, of the drainage risk and did not take effective action after being told of the flooding.
The parties later agreed that the club would build a berm to an engineering plan intended to reduce the water reaching the house. The judge found that work began in March 2004 without the agreed inspection and used unsuitable material. The berm was also built in the wrong location. It reduced surface water reaching the garden, but acted as a dam during heavy rain, causing ponding on club land and continued seepage into the garden.
The judge found the club’s handling of the 1998 works, its response to the flooding, and its failure to follow the agreed berm plan unreasonable. He held that the flooding remained a continuing actionable nuisance, although substantially reduced after the berm was built. He also found negligence in the berm’s construction and location.
The ruling addressed liability, not the amount of damages or the final remedy. Any damages are subject to issues including alternative causes of damage to the house, mitigation and proof of the sums claimed. The court also noted questions about the plaintiffs’ own steps to protect their property for consideration at the damages hearing. It rejected the plaintiffs’ claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.