The High Court has refused to set aside notices joining fire-safety consultants Michael N. Slattery and Associates Limited (MSA) as third parties in litigation arising from a 2019 fire at Douglas Village Shopping Centre in Cork.
Mr Justice Quinn ruled that the notices were served as soon as reasonably possible and that setting them aside would undermine the purpose of the Civil Liability Act, which includes avoiding multiple proceedings over the same events. The decision concerned procedure only: it did not determine the cause of the fire or whether MSA, the vehicle manufacturers or any other party was liable.
The fire began in a parked Opel Zafira in the centre’s multi-storey car park on 31 August 2019 and spread to other vehicles, the car park and the shopping centre. The centre closed for more than a year for demolition and reconstruction.
The centre’s owners, Avoncore Limited and Canmont Limited, are suing companies involved in the design, manufacture and recall of the Opel Zafira B. They allege defects in the vehicle’s heating and ventilation system and failures in the recall process caused the fire and resulting damage. The defendants deny those claims and say the fire’s cause has not yet been established.
The vehicle defendants allege that MSA’s fire-safety work during the centre’s 2007–2009 refurbishment contributed to the spread of the fire. MSA denies liability. The judge noted that no party alleged MSA had a role in starting the fire; the claims against the consultants concern the spread of the blaze.
MSA sought to have the third-party notices set aside, arguing that the defendants had enough information to join them much earlier and that the delay prejudiced their ability to participate in the investigation. The defendants said they needed expert advice before bringing a professional-negligence claim and received advice indicating there was a basis for a claim in November 2021.
The judge considered earlier pleadings that referred to fire-safety design and the absence of sprinklers, but found those allegations against the centre’s owners did not, by themselves, provide enough information to support a professional-negligence claim against MSA. He treated 7 December 2020 as the point from which to assess delay under the court rules. The applications to join MSA were issued on 14 December 2021; the notices were served on 22 December 2021 and 12 January 2022.
The related Callistoy proceedings, brought by retail occupiers, also name MSA as a defendant and are due to be heard alongside the owners’ case on liability issues. The judge said MSA’s participation in both proceedings would support a single trial and avoid confusion. He dismissed MSA’s applications to set aside the notices.