The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Roadstone Limited and CRH Public Limited Company over a High Court order requiring Roadstone to identify quarry locations from which stone was extracted and supplied for Drumnigh Wood Estate in Portmarnock, County Dublin.
The order arose in proceedings brought by Ballymore Residential Limited and Crosswinds Cottage Limited, which seek indemnity and contribution from suppliers in connection with claims by homeowners over alleged structural defects. The estate comprises 145 houses built between November 2001 and August 2007. Homeowners alleged that defects arose from pyritic heave. Those allegations were not determined in this appeal.
The High Court ordered inspection and sampling at Roadstone’s Huntstown, Belgard and Feltrim quarries, and directed Roadstone to identify the relevant locations to make the inspection focused. Roadstone appealed only the location-identification requirement. It argued that the court lacked authority to require it to provide information under an inspection order, that the relief had not been expressly sought, and that the requirement was burdensome and unfair.
By the time the appeal was heard, Roadstone had provided blast records, extraction plans and delivery dockets. The respondents used those materials to identify likely locations, inspected the quarries and took samples in 2019. They accepted that Roadstone had done what it could to identify the locations and said they would not seek further inspections. The Court of Appeal nevertheless held the appeal was not moot because the High Court order remained in force and had not been complied with; a later dispute could not be ruled out.
The court held that Order 50, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts gives the High Court authority to make ancillary orders reasonably necessary and expedient to give effect to an inspection order, provided they are within the parties’ capabilities and are not unduly onerous or oppressive. It found the location requirement necessary to make the inspection effective, and rejected Roadstone’s arguments that it breached fair procedures, reversed the burden of proof or was oppressive.
The court also rejected Roadstone’s challenge to remarks in the High Court judgment about its conduct of the proceedings. It said those remarks were not findings capable of being set aside on appeal.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order of 11 April 2019 affirmed. The Court of Appeal continued the stay on the order indefinitely, pending further orders. It gave a provisional view that Roadstone and CRH should pay the respondents’ appeal costs, subject to a possible short hearing if the appellants sought a different costs order within 14 days.