ONE OF the State’s largest house builders is to change its case against a quarry firm which it is suing for supplying allegedly defective material that caused damage to up to 750 homes in north Dublin.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday directed Menolly Homes owned by Séamus Ross to amend its claim after a dispute arose over the wording of its case against Lagan quarry company Irish Asphalt Ltd.
The case centres on Menolly’s claim that stone infill material from Irish Asphalt’s Bay Lane quarry, near Kilshane, north Co Dublin, which was placed under the floors of houses and under common areas such as roads and footpaths, contained excessive levels of the mineral pyrite making it susceptible to swelling. This is alleged to have consequently occurred, causing damage to the houses, roads and footpaths.
However, testing on houses has shown that the infill material used in at least 16 houses, which are experiencing problems, did not come from the Bay Lane quarry.
It is Lagan’s contention that the defects in the buildings relate to other factors such as their design and workmanship and not the infill material.
However, counsel for Menolly Denis McDonald said his clients were “puzzled” by these test results as the infill material used was bought from Lagan and so had presumed that the material came from the Lagan-owned Bay Lane quarry.
Mr McDonald said he continued to make the case that it was infill material supplied by Lagan which had caused the problems with the buildings.
Counsel for Lagan, Hugh O’Neill said he was “flabbergasted” by the claim Mr McDonald was now making. It was stated both in the claim lodged against Lagan and the opening statement made on behalf of Menolly that material which came from the Bay Lane quarry was the source of the problems, Mr O’Neill said.
Menolly had “accepted that houses not supplied by the defendant are now showing problems”. Mr O’Neill said: “I have to suggest that what is now being attempted is spin”.
Mr McDonald’s new claim was “entirely inconsistent” with Menolly’s original case, Mr O’Neill said.
“The plaintiff is asking the court to believe that the defendants supplied non-Bay Lane infill . . . it just beggars belief,” he said.
Mr McDonald was attempting to “change tack” in the middle of the case, Mr O’Neill said and he was being asked to defend a new claim after witness statements had been taken and witnesses heard.
Mr McDonald said his clients had only discovered at a late stage that not all the material supplied by Lagan was from Bay Lane.
Mr Justice Gilligan said it may be a relatively simple matter to discover if Lagan sourced infill from a third party. He directed Mr McDonald to deliver an amended statement of claim and any additional witness statements. This part of the case will come before the court again on April 24th.
