The High Court found that McKeon Brothers Limited was negligent in installing pipe connections to a jacuzzi at Martin and Louise Whelan’s Dublin home, leading to a leak that caused €82,313.65 in damage. The court said it would make final orders after receiving written submissions on their terms, costs and any other matters.
Mr Justice Barr delivered judgment electronically on 20 February 2024. The claim was brought in the plaintiffs’ names as a recovery action by their household insurer, which had paid for the damage. The defendant’s limitation defence was not pursued at trial.
The jacuzzi and a 5.5 bar pump, sourced by Martin Whelan from Teuco in Italy, were installed by the defendant in 2007 while the house was under construction. The system worked without reported leaks for seven years. On 26 October 2014, water escaped from a hot-water connection, passed through the bathroom floor and entered the kitchen ceiling below.
The plaintiffs alleged that the connection had not been properly tightened during installation. The defendant argued that the seven years of trouble-free use pointed instead to stresses from the higher-pressure pump and frequent jacuzzi use loosening the fittings over time. Its engineer also raised possible gasket or pressure-vessel failures.
An engineer retained by the insurer inspected the system five days after the leak. He found four connections loose and tightened two accessible lower connections. The leak stopped and did not recur. The judge accepted his evidence that the 5.5 bar pump was unusual in a domestic setting but not excessive for this substantial private house; the pipework was rated for up to 10 bar.
The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the connections had been inadequately tightened at installation. He considered it more likely that all four were loose because they had not been properly tightened than that they had loosened simultaneously through later stresses. He preferred the insurer’s engineer’s evidence that properly made connections should have withstood those stresses. The alternative explanations were not persuasive: the defendant’s engineer had not inspected the system, and the court considered his views on the gasket and pressure vessel speculative.
The court found the defendant, its servants or agents negligent and held the plaintiffs entitled to damages. The amount of their loss was agreed at €82,313.65, and the judgment stated they were entitled to judgment for that sum. The court invited brief written submissions within two weeks on the terms of the final order, costs and other matters, and listed the case for mention on 12 March 2024. The judgment therefore recorded liability and the agreed amount, while leaving the final order and costs for a later step.