Judgment: 2026-07-03 · Court archive

High Court pauses four BAM children’s hospital claims pending ruling on Phase B instruction

High Court · [2026] IEHC 443

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • BAM Building Limited (Plaintiff)
  • National Paediatric Hospital Development Board (Defendant)
What

High Court pauses four BAM children’s hospital claims pending ruling on Phase B instruction

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

BAM told the court that the outcome could fundamentally change how the four later claims are calculated. If the Phase B instruction is invalid, BAM says the claims may have to proceed on a materially different basis. Its frame claim seeks more than €45 million, while a conciliator recommended more than €107 million in the global delay dispute.

The High Court has paused four substantial claims by BAM Building Limited concerning construction of the new children’s hospital at St James’s Hospital in Dublin until a separate contractual dispute is decided.

BAM sought stays on claims concerning the structural frame, overall project delay, inflation and level 07 steelworks. The National Paediatric Hospital Development Board opposed the application and argued that BAM should plead its cases now, including alternative claims if necessary.

The central unresolved issue arises from an instruction issued on January 8, 2019 directing BAM to commence Phase B, covering the superstructure and building works. NPHDB says the instruction was valid and binding. BAM disputes that and argues that contractual preconditions had not been satisfied.

That issue is already set to be decided as “Module 1” of separate proceedings begun by NPHDB in 2020.

BAM told the court that the outcome could fundamentally change how the four later claims are calculated. If the Phase B instruction is invalid, BAM says the claims may have to proceed on a materially different basis. Its frame claim seeks more than €45 million, while a conciliator recommended more than €107 million in the global delay dispute.

Mr Justice Sanfey accepted that requiring BAM to plead all possible alternatives before Module 1 is decided would involve significant expert work and expense. BAM estimated the additional pleading exercise could cost more than €500,000.

The judge said the unusual feature was that BAM itself sought to stay proceedings it had commenced. However, BAM was contractually required to issue those cases after NPHDB rejected conciliators’ recommendations.

The court found that resolving the Phase B issue first would bring clarity, avoid unnecessary expert work and make the remaining disputes easier to manage. It also noted that the Commercial Court could ensure the Phase B module proceeded expeditiously.

All four High Court disputes were therefore stayed pending determination of the Phase B proceedings or further court order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review