The Court of Appeal has dismissed Roadstone Limited and CRH Public Limited Company’s appeal against the refusal to strike out or stay proceedings brought by Ballymore Residential Limited and Crosswinds Cottage Limited over stone supplied for the Drumnigh Wood housing estate in Portmarnock.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 4 June 2021, concerns how claims between Ballymore and the quarry companies should proceed alongside homeowners’ cases alleging damage linked to pyrite in stone infill. The court did not decide whether Roadstone was liable for the alleged damage, or finally determine the disputed interpretation of section 27 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.
Ballymore began the plenary proceedings in December 2015, seeking contribution and indemnity, as well as damages under common law claims. Homeowner proceedings followed. In 2018, Ballymore obtained permission to serve Roadstone with third-party notices in three homeowner cases. Roadstone then sought to have the earlier plenary case struck out or paused, arguing that the contribution issues should be dealt with through the third-party procedure.
The Court of Appeal held that Roadstone’s statutory argument was not suitable for resolution on a strike-out application. It found no established legal authority showing that serving third-party notices barred proceedings that had begun earlier. The court said the question of section 27’s application could be considered at trial if Roadstone continued to pursue it. It also concluded that, even if the statutory contribution claim were later removed, Ballymore’s separate common law claims would remain.
The court upheld the High Court’s case-management approach. Roadstone had participated in the plenary case for more than two years before seeking to stop it, and the High Court judge had managed both the plenary and homeowner proceedings. The Court of Appeal found no persuasive evidence of prejudice that required changing that arrangement. It noted that the High Court could adjust its directions if a real disadvantage emerged.
The appeal court also dismissed Ballymore’s cross-appeal against the High Court’s ruling that it could not pursue the same relief through both the plenary and third-party proceedings, and that it could not issue further third-party notices. It rejected Ballymore’s challenge to the High Court’s decision to reserve costs.
The Court of Appeal proposed that Ballymore receive its costs of Roadstone’s appeal, with no order as to the costs of Ballymore’s cross-appeal. The parties were given 21 days to seek different costs orders; absent such a request, the proposed orders would be perfected. The judgment left the underlying liability and homeowner claims for later proceedings.