The High Court ordered an owners’ management company suing over alleged fire safety defects at Dublin’s Ivy Exchange development to provide €530,500 in security for costs for each of two defendants. The security is to be lodged in phases. The court also refused the company’s request for an order inviting two architect defendants to consider mediation, finding the application premature while the claim against them remained insufficiently particularised.
I.E.G.P. Management Company Limited by Guarantee brought proceedings over alleged defects in five apartment blocks and commercial units at Ivy Exchange, Parnell Street. The judgment said the development comprises 198 apartments and 11 commercial units. The company, which owns the common areas, claimed the estimated repair cost had risen from about €7 million to more than €9 million. Those figures were estimates described in the judgment; liability for the alleged defects remains disputed.
The applications before Ms Justice Nuala Butler were brought by the sixth defendant, a consulting engineering firm, and the eighth and ninth defendants, an architectural firm and its director. The judge found that each had established a prima facie defence for the security applications, including arguments that the claims were brought outside the limitation period and that fire safety work fell outside their contractual responsibilities. These were threshold findings for the applications, not decisions on whether the defences will succeed at trial.
The judge also found reason to believe the management company would be unable to meet the defendants’ costs if they successfully defended the case. The company proposed raising money through a special levy on unit owners, but the court found that the levy’s approval and collection were too uncertain to remove that concern. It estimated likely costs at €530,500 for each defendant, excluding VAT.
The court ordered the company to lodge half the total security—€530,500—in respect of both defendants. If it does not discontinue against either defendant after discovery, or if the case does not settle at mediation, it must lodge the remaining security before making another preliminary application or serving a notice of trial. Any sum lodged beyond costs ultimately awarded is to be returned. The phased order does not mean the court found that reaching discovery or mediation would incur half the total estimated costs.
On mediation, the court said the architect defendants could not fairly be invited to consider settlement while they did not know the detailed case against them and could face costs consequences for refusing. The judge said the company’s replies to requests for particulars were unnecessarily uninformative and defensive. The court therefore refused the motion at this stage, leaving the company to take steps to particularise its claim and, if needed, seek relevant documents by discovery.