The Court of Appeal has upheld an order requiring Walls Construction Limited to pay the costs of a failed application by Niall Kealy, trading as NK Engineering, to strike out proceedings over a ramp collapse at the Central Bank’s Dublin headquarters. The appeal court also upheld the refusal to stay payment of those costs.
The underlying claim has not been decided. The High Court dismissed Mr Kealy’s motion in October 2024, finding that the prejudice he had shown did not meet the threshold for striking out the proceedings. Walls appealed only the costs order and the refusal of a stay; the decision to let the claim continue was not under appeal.
The proceedings concern a ramp that collapsed in August 2015 at the Central Bank’s headquarters on North Wall Quay. According to the judgment, Walls’ insurers paid out on a claim and are seeking to recover that payment, together with an uninsured excess. Chubb, identified in the judgment as Walls’ insurer, wrote to Mr Kealy in November 2017 seeking €115,724.35 for the outlay to that date.
A plenary summons was issued in May 2019 and served in August that year. A notice of intention to proceed followed in September 2022, and the statement of claim was delivered in May 2023. No defence had been delivered by the time of the appeal hearing, though the judgment records that further time to file one was later agreed after a default-judgment motion was brought. Mr Kealy’s strike-out motion was issued in December 2023.
The Court of Appeal rejected all three grounds advanced by Walls. It found that the High Court judge had concluded that the delay amounted to an abuse of process and had awarded costs to mark disapproval of the insurers’ handling of the claim. The appeal court held that this approach fell within the High Court’s discretion. It also found no error in refusing a stay, noting that no evidence had been presented of hardship to the insurers from paying the costs.
The appeal court’s provisional view was that Mr Kealy, or his insurers, should receive the costs of the appeal. It gave the parties until 5pm on 21 March 2025 to notify the court if either wished to argue for a different costs order. The judgment does not state the final appeal-costs order.
The court observed that the special damages pleaded remained identical to the amount sought in Chubb’s 2017 letter, and said renewed settlement discussions could be sensible given the costs and limited progress. That observation did not resolve the underlying claim.