The High Court dismissed Údarás na Gaeltachta’s claim against Uisce Glan Teoranta over damage to factory premises leased to the company, finding that none of the causes of action had been established.
In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2007, Mr Justice O’Neill said the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, what caused ground heave at the premises in late 1992 and early 1993. The heave was associated with cracking in factory walls, a concrete cross beam lifting from its supporting pillar and part of the yard rising.
The plaintiff alleged that sulphuric acid escaped into the ground, reacted with materials there to form gypsum, and caused the ground to expand. The defendant disputed that account. It argued that sulphate in the soil could have come from the manufacturing process and that any dilute acid or gypsum could not have generated enough pressure to cause the damage. It also proposed water pressure, potentially linked to a high water table, wet weather and water entering through an ESB duct.
The judge found significant acid leakage into the ground highly unlikely. He relied on evidence about the bunds around the storage tanks, the yard drainage and sump, and an excavated underground pipe that was in good condition. He considered it more likely that alum gradually percolated through the factory’s poorly maintained tiled floor. But he did not find that this explained the ground heave: neither the plaintiffs’ acid theory nor the defendant’s water-pressure explanation met the required standard of proof.
The claims included negligence, nuisance, breach of statutory duty and contract. The judge rejected negligence on the basis that the alleged acid discharge had not been proved. The nuisance claim, including reliance on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, also failed: he found no escape of sulphuric acid and no escape beyond the leased premises. He said there was no evidence that the defendant’s trade caused avoidable nuisance to neighbouring occupiers or that corrosive substances discharged into drains had damaged them.
The contract claim included an alleged breach of the lease covenant to repair. The judge said the defendant was not required to improve the floor beyond its condition when the premises were leased, including by making it non-porous. He also found that the ground heave and resulting damage had not been shown to arise from a failure to repair. The court therefore dismissed the claim; the judgment does not specify a damages award or other further order.