The High Court has rejected a fraud claim by Barbara Hill against property developers David McInerney and Jason Griffin over an apartment in Ennistymon, finding that the evidence did not establish deceit by either man.
In a judgment delivered on 30 June 2016, Mr Justice Max Barrett said Ms Hill had cause for grievance and the court’s sympathy. But the sole remaining allegation at trial was deceit, and the court found it had not been proved.
Ms Hill bought the apartment in 2006. It was one of three units in a renovated house developed by Mr McInerney and Mr Griffin as MG Developments. The sales brochure described a top-floor apartment with stairs to an attic room and a second en suite.
After renting the apartment to a private tenant from April 2007 to March 2010, Ms Hill sought to rent it to a local authority tenant. The fire authority then found the apartment breached its fire safety certificate and directed that the stairs to the converted attic be sealed, preventing the space from being used as a habitable room. Ms Hill said the direction made the apartment unsaleable and alleged that the developers had knowingly concealed that it was unauthorised.
The court found that the fire safety limitation had been clearly disclosed during conveyancing. A fire compliance certificate dated 4 May 2006 stated that the attic could not be used as habitable space and was permitted only for storage. That certificate was supplied to Ms Hill’s solicitor in December 2006, the judgment said. The court held that this disclosure defeated the deceit claim concerning fire safety.
Ms Hill also alleged that the developers knew the works departed from planning permission and concealed that fact. The judgment records that they gave planning documents to civil engineer David Whelan, whose opinion said planning conditions had been substantially complied with and that any disparity was unlikely to affect planning and development of the area.
The judge accepted the developers’ evidence that they relied on their professional advisers and found no evidence they tried to influence Mr Whelan. The court noted that an additional attic en suite appeared to depart from the planning permission, but said the developers, like Ms Hill, were not planning experts and were entitled to rely on the engineer’s opinion. It made no finding on whether Mr Whelan had failed in his professional responsibilities.
The court concluded that neither developer had committed deceit. The judgment does not determine any claim against the former defendants, who were no longer parties at trial, or make a finding on the engineers’ professional responsibilities.