The High Court ordered Shane and Antoinette O’Reilly to pay the defendants’ costs incurred from 18 February 2016 onwards, except costs connected with the O’Reillys’ claim for rent on alternative accommodation. The ruling followed an earlier judgment requiring the defendants to carry out repairs under a building agreement and pay the plaintiffs’ alternative accommodation costs.
Mr Justice Donald Binchy delivered the costs ruling on 18 January 2018. He said the plaintiffs could recover their costs incurred up to 18 February 2016, as well as costs for the rent claim. To simplify the latter assessment, he allowed costs for one day of hearing on rent, on the basis that no expert evidence about the defects would have been needed for that issue alone.
The dispute concerned a house built under a 2005 agreement. The plaintiffs had initially sought rescission and repayment of the contract price, or damages. At trial they abandoned rescission and sought, among other things, €97,000 for estimated repairs, about €75,000 in rent by the end of the trial, and general damages. In the principal judgment, the court instead ordered specific performance, made no award of general damages, and ordered the defendants to meet the alternative accommodation costs while repairs were carried out.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had rejected several opportunities to resolve the dispute and that those refusals should affect costs. The judge found the defendants’ February 2016 offer should have been accepted. It proposed a process involving the parties’ engineers and an independent expert to identify defects, specify and supervise repairs, and resolve disagreements. The plaintiffs’ engineer had said he could see no reason the offer was not accepted; evidence from the second plaintiff indicated the plaintiffs had lost faith in the defendants, but the judge said the offer addressed those concerns through the engineer’s involvement and independent dispute resolution.
The judge treated the April 2012 offer differently. Although he described it as commendable, it did not address the attic mould, a central dispute, and lacked a provision for independent resolution. He said the plaintiffs should nevertheless have responded to it meaningfully.
The court also ordered a €7,500 allowance, plus VAT, for possible work by the plaintiffs’ engineer under the 2016 proposal. That amount is to be credited against the plaintiffs’ costs liability to the defendants. The ruling determined costs following the earlier substantive judgment; it did not revisit the repair order.