The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by architects and an architectural firm seeking to have a negligence case over a pyrite-damaged house dismissed because of delay.
The court accepted that the plaintiffs, Noel Beggan and Siobhan Beggan, had caused inordinate and inexcusable delay. But it held that the defendants had not shown prejudice sufficient to make it unfair for them to continue defending the claim. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s refusal to dismiss the proceedings in place.
The plaintiffs bought a newly built house at 57 Ryebridge Avenue, Kilcock, County Kildare, in 2006. The judgment says pyrite was used in its construction and structural defects became apparent through cracking in 2011. Proceedings began in 2012. The plaintiffs allege negligence in the house’s design, construction and certification; the defendants deny the allegations. The appeal concerned only the application by the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants to dismiss for delay.
The Court of Appeal reviewed periods of delay, including the year between issuing and serving the summons, and a lengthy period after the plaintiffs made discovery in February 2017. The plaintiffs’ solicitor said repeated requests for discovery from the defendants went unanswered, apart from a December 2016 reply saying instructions were being taken. The court said the defendants had no procedural obligation to progress discovery then, but their failure to respond meaningfully was relevant to the balance of justice.
The defendants’ solicitor had asserted that the proceedings caused reputational harm and affected professional indemnity insurance renewals. The judgment found no concrete evidence of reputational damage, increased premiums, missing documents or witnesses, or significant loss of recollection. It characterised the case as one that would turn mainly on documents and expert assessment, and concluded the defendants had not established prejudice that would make a trial unfair.
The court strongly criticised the plaintiffs and their lawyers for failing to progress the case over almost a decade and said it should now proceed with considerable urgency. The ruling did not decide whether the defendants were negligent or resolve the underlying claim.