The High Court has dismissed a claim by the owners of commercial units in Cork over roof gutters and utility connections serving an adjoining industrial unit, finding that the defendants’ easements permitted use of service conduits on the plaintiffs’ land.
Mr Justice David Keane, in a judgment delivered on 9 September 2016, said the defendants had failed to give the reasonable notice required by the easement before carrying out works to connect their services. Those works were trespasses. But the court held that the continuing presence of the connecting conduits was not a trespass, and the plaintiffs had offered no evidence of loss, damage or inconvenience caused by the works.
The plaintiffs, Tom O’Regan and Dermot Coffey, owned land and business units surrounding Unit 63 at Sunbeam Industrial Estate. The defendants, Joseph Carey, Dan Mulvihill, Rory O’Hanlon and David O’Hanlon, owned Unit 63. The plaintiffs complained that gutters overhung their land, that rainwater had previously discharged onto it, and that the defendants had connected electricity, water and drainage services to systems installed on the plaintiffs’ land. They sought damages and injunctions.
The court was not satisfied that the roof itself extended beyond the party wall. It found the gutters overhung the plaintiffs’ property by less than eight inches. The judge concluded that the easement’s terms permitted gutters and allowed the defendants to use conduits installed on the plaintiffs’ land within 21 years of the 1995 grant. It also permitted necessary meters for the reasonable use of electricity and water. The defendants were not required to contribute to the plaintiffs’ costs of installing those services.
The judge found that the defendants had connected electricity, water, surface-water drainage and foul-water drainage to systems on the plaintiffs’ lands without consulting them or giving the required notice. The notice failure made the connecting works trespasses, but did not remove the defendants’ right to the free passage of services under the easement. No evidence showed that the works caused loss or damage.
The plaintiffs’ additional claims concerning the water-main and foul-sewage connections were challenged as unpleaded. The judge said the objection had considerable force but did not decide it, because he found no merit in the wider claims. He also declined to determine a separate planning-permission dispute, which was outside the pleaded claims.
The court dismissed the action and refused the relief sought.