Judgment: 2008-03-31 · Court archive

Airscape wins High Court contract dispute over delayed Park West works

The court found Heaslon Properties had persistently failed to cooperate with agreed works at Unit S4, but split the retained funds between the companies and dismissed Heaslon’s counterclaim.

High Court · [2008] IEHC 82

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Heaslon Properties
What

The court found Heaslon Properties had persistently failed to cooperate with agreed works at Unit S4, but split the retained funds between the companies and dismissed Heaslon’s counterclaim.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Park West Industrial Estate
  • Unit S4
  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Airscape’s roofing contractor was stopped from starting work in May 2002. The judge found Heaslon was entitled to halt the work until the specification was agreed, and that Airscape had placed a firm order before obtaining Heaslon’s agreement. The parties later referred the roofing dispute to an independent architect, David Keane, who upheld Airscape’s proposal in April 2003.

The High Court has ruled that Heaslon Properties Ltd fundamentally breached its contract with Airscape Ltd by failing to cooperate with outstanding building works at a Park West industrial unit. The court discharged Airscape from further contractual obligations, ordered part of the retained funds returned to each company, and dismissed Heaslon’s counterclaim.

The dispute concerned works at Unit S4, a former factory building in Park West Industrial Estate, Dublin. Under a March 2002 agreement, Airscape was to complete a list of works, including roofing, flooring in the CPC area and work around a former gantry support. A retention of €317,434.52 was held pending completion. The companies disagreed about the roof specification and how some roof openings should be covered.

Airscape’s roofing contractor was stopped from starting work in May 2002. The judge found Heaslon was entitled to halt the work until the specification was agreed, and that Airscape had placed a firm order before obtaining Heaslon’s agreement. The parties later referred the roofing dispute to an independent architect, David Keane, who upheld Airscape’s proposal in April 2003.

The judge found that from early June 2002 Heaslon was unwilling to engage meaningfully to facilitate other major works, including flooring and work around the gantry support. Those works could have proceeded while the roof dispute was being resolved if Heaslon had temporarily moved equipment and made the premises available. The court found no evidence Heaslon proposed alternative dates or told Airscape when replacement equipment was being installed so the work could be done then.

After Airscape’s February 2004 notice set a seven-day deadline for Heaslon to propose when work could begin, the deadline passed without a proposal. The judge held that Heaslon’s persistent lack of cooperation breached an implied contractual term and was fundamental. Airscape was therefore entitled to be discharged from further obligations under the contract.

The court rejected Heaslon’s counterclaim, finding no evidence that Airscape’s post-March 2002 work had been negligent or in breach of contract. It said responsibility for the roofing work remaining undone after Mr Keane’s decision rested with Heaslon. The judge ordered €194,716.30 from the joint deposit account to Airscape and €134,112.73 to Heaslon. Airscape was also awarded €5,238.89 in damages for the roofing contractor’s restocking charge, and its costs on the claim and counterclaim, to be taxed if not agreed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review