Court warns on Priory Hall breaches

Failure to complete emergency remedial works at the Priory Hall apartment complex by the end of next month will be regarded as a breach of court orders, the High Court warned today.

Any such failure will be acted on immediately and weekly work targets will have to be met, the President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said.

The days of previous failures in tackling the serious problems at the 187-apartment complex in Donaghmede "are over" as far as the court is concerned and he would personally inspect the premises if any dispute arose, Mr Justice Kearns also warned.

About 240 residents were forced to move out of the complex with many being housed in a Dublin hotel in what the judge described as "a Dunkirk-like situation". He ordered Dublin City Council to cover the accommodation and storage costs of the residents but said it was impossible to make orders for their subsistence or travel expenses.

He also urged banks and lending institutions to take due account of the “unprecedented difficulties" being experienced by the residents as mortgage holders.

The judge said the High Court will have to be informed every Friday by the developers and Dublin City Council of the progress of specified programme of works essential to address serious fire safety concerns at the complex.

Mr Justice Kearns  noted counsel for developer Tom McFeely, whose company Coalport Ltd had developed the complex in 2006, had admitted that a statement of means provided to the court by Mr McFeely early today was inadequate.  Mr McFeely, despite being advised he had to provide the court today with a statement of affairs had chosen instead to file a statement of income and outgoings. He subsequently filed a full statement of affairs afternoon.

After receiving that statement of affairs, the judge agreed to lift the freezing orders. He was asked that the statement be kept private on grounds it related to Mr McFeely's personal affairs and was "commercially sensitive".

The judge said lawyers for the council could cross-examine Mr McFeely if the need arose.

The judge was told scaffolding has been erected on the site in advance of a work schedule ordered to begin from Monday next and to be completed by November 28th. He agreed to lift an order freezing bank accounts of Mr McFeely and Coalport to release funds for the works.

He thanked Dublin's Regency Hotel, where many residents are being accommodated, and the National Assets Management Agency for its intervention and agreement to consider whether residents may be housed in Nama-owned properties. That offered some real hope, particularly for families with small children for whom hotel accommodation is unsuitable, he said.

He wanted to particularly thank the residents for their "courageous response" to the situation, the judge added.

Another businessman Larry O'Mahony, who was adjudicated a bankrupt last April, is also a respondent to the case but denies any involvement in or responsibility for the problems at the development. The court will deal next week with his application to be taken out of the case and to lift orders freezing his accounts.

The residents have been formally out of the complex since last Thursday, last although many began moving earlier as soon as they learned Dublin City Council were seeking evacuation orders.

Many crowded into the court today to be updated on the latest situation concerning the controversial development.

Conleth Bradley SC, for the council, said fire safety inspector Donal Casey had inspected the complex where scaffolding had been erected. As the court had ordered works to begin from Monday, the council regarded the scaffolding as a positive sign.

Noting the court's intention to supervise the works, he asked the matter be adjourned to allow the works get underway. The council's housing section was doing its best to meet the residents' needs, he added.

A group of 34 residents, represented by John O'Donnell SC, and a separate group of some 40 residents, represented by Vincent Martin of the New Beginings group, were joined as notice parties to the case.

Mr O'Donnell said it was hard to underestimate the anger and frustration of the residents who were anxious the works be done by parties other than Coalport and Mr McFeely because they had a "complete lack of trust" in them given the nature of previous remedial works done. They were also concerned about their mortgages, that the development's management company was in arrears and whether an electricity bill would be paid.

The council could not commission others to do the works but the residents could be assured the past was the past, the present was "very different" and the court would supervise these works, the judge said.

Mr Martin said his clients had "zero confidence" in the builders and "very little confidence" in the council which "ridiculed" Mr McFeely in court but was "only too happy" to ask him to do remedial works. New Beginnings had met with the banks and the residents wanted full information.

The residents wanted to thank the judge and believed he was the "only person to have taken their cause seriously" and they had trust, faith and hope in him, counsel added.