The High Court has allowed Permagreen Insulation (Ireland) Limited to amend its defence in a case brought by Michael and Silvia Gunning over damage to their house in Co. Westmeath.
The motion concerned the scope of the company’s responsibility, not the final outcome of the plaintiffs’ claim. The court permitted the amendment so the company could argue at trial that some damage resulted from defects in the house’s design or construction, and that further damage followed the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to carry out remedial works. Those points remain allegations to be determined.
The Gunnings began building the house in 2009 and retained Permagreen to install cavity insulation in 2011. They allege that negligent installation caused extensive damage, requiring demolition and rebuilding. In its defence filed in April 2016, Permagreen admitted that its installation caused “certain damage” and referred to its insurer’s 2012 correspondence saying liability was not disputed. It denied that the plaintiffs had established the extent of their loss or that demolition and rebuilding was the only remedy.
Permagreen sought the amendment in a motion issued in July 2018. The plaintiffs opposed it, arguing that changing the defence after the admission would unfairly prejudice them, including because they might now be out of time to sue unidentified parties said to be responsible for design or construction defects.
Mr Justice Barr acknowledged the force of that concern. He said a late change to an admission could cause serious prejudice in some circumstances. But he concluded that the original defence admitted responsibility only for “certain damage”, not all damage to the property. The plaintiffs still had to prove what damage was caused by the company’s wrongdoing, and the company could argue that other damage resulted from other parties’ actions even if the defence was not amended.
The judge therefore found that the amendment did not alter the company’s position on liability, but formally notified the plaintiffs of its case about the extent and causes of the damage. He was satisfied it would not unfairly prejudice them and allowed the defence to be amended. The judgment did not decide the cause or extent of the damage, the amount of any loss, or the ultimate liability at trial.