A builder and firm of architects are facing a legal costs bill of at least €1 million after the Supreme Court ruled that a woman was entitled to an award of €100,000 damages against them over the "appalling" and "totally botched" renovation and extension of her house in Co Offaly.
After the extension was condemned as unfit to live in, Sarah Maria Leahy moved into a garage beside the house in 1998 and remains there.
Although the Supreme Court yesterday reduced the original €122,000 damages award to Ms Leahy to €100,000, it upheld the High Court's decision to award costs to Ms Leahy of the 20-day hearing in the High Court, estimated by legal sources as more than €1 million.
In making the damages award to Ms Leahy in the High Court in 2003, Mr Justice Philip O'Sullivan said her house at Ballykelly, Cadamstown, Birr, was condemned as unsafe in three reports and her father, who had some experience of building work, had said he "had seen more careful building on some farmhouse sheds". He awarded the damages to meet the costs of demolishing the extension to slab level and rebuilding it.
The judge, who visited the house himself, said it was a "depressing and untidy sight". After the structure was condemned, Ms Leahy moved with her young son in spring 1998 from the house into a garage on the site, where she remains.
The judge held Joseph Rawson, a builder, Coolfancy, Tinahely, Co Wicklow, (whose brother Jim Bob Rawson was Ms Leahy's former partner) and Fergus Garland and Peter Murphy of Garland Murphy and Associates, a firm of architects/engineers, Tullamore, Co Offaly, were liable to Ms Leahy for €121,894 and costs.
Ms Leahy had also sued Irish Permanent plc but the judge held she had made out no case against that company and awarded the Irish Permanent's costs to 1998 against her.
The Supreme Court yesterday heard an appeal by Mr Garland and Mr Murphy, who were sued on the basis they were in partnership, against the amount of the award. Mr Rawson did not appeal the decision.
The court upheld arguments that Mr Garland and Mr Murphy could not have foreseen that Ms Leahy intended to run a bed-and-breakfast at her house and ruled they were not liable for the €20,000 portion of the award allocated for that loss. However, the court dismissed arguments against the damages awarded in other categories.
The effect of its findings was that the damages award would be reduced to some €100,000, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said.
Giving the court's decision, Mr Justice Fennelly, with Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns and Ms Justice Fidelma Macken, said this was a long and complex piece of litigation which was unfortunately, far too long and far too complex.
He had no doubt the amount of legal costs dwarfed the damages awarded but the court still had to decide the appeal before it.
The house was "quite appallingly built" and "a disgrace" to anyone who claimed to be a builder, the judge said.
The extension to the house was a "totally botched job" in almost every respect and was unsafe to live in. This was an "extremely bad job".
After the decision on the appeal, Robert Barron SC, for the appellants, argued that the High Court judge wrongly exercised his discretion on costs in directing that Ms Leahy receive her costs when the case was dominated by Ms Leahy's unsuccessful claim that she was entitled to damages for demolition and building of a totally new house.
Refusing the costs application, the court said Ms Leahy had won her case and was entitled to costs and Mr Barron had identified no principle which would justify costs being awarded against her.
Mr Justice Kearns said Ms Leahy had won twice and an award of costs against her would nullify that win.
