SUPERQUINN Ltd claimed in the High Court yesterday that certain defendants, including Coillte Teoranta, were liable for the extensive flood damage to its store in Bray during "Hurricane Charlie" 10 years ago.
The supermarket claims that Bray Urban District Council, Coillte Teoranta and Uniform Construction Ltd, of Newcastle Road, Lucan, are liable for the store's flood damage. The defendants deny the claim, saying the flooding was an "act of God".
Mr Edward Comyn SC, for the supermarket, said Superquinn Ltd was a well-known supermarket chain with one of its larger stores in Little Bray. Late on August 25th 1986, and in the early hours of August 26th, flooding took place in the supermarket causing damage to fridges, freezers, shelving and stock.
There was a strong storm and rain for a considerable time. However, the flooding in the store would not have taken place to the extent it did had there not been added factors, each contributing to the flooding and the rise in water levels.
There were three added elements. There was a small, artificial lake known as Paddock Lake or Paddock Pond in the hills overlooking Bray which were once part of the Powerscourt Estate. It was formed by blocking off a small stream in a steep valley.
On the night of the storm, the dam burst and substantial amounts of water rushed down the path of the stream, added substantially to the flood in the Dargle river. His case was that there were elements of negligence as the lake was not properly maintained or inspected. The lake at the time was the property of the Department of Forestry and Lands, which was now Coillte Teoranta.
There were other factors. A river wall upriver had been taken down to facilitate works carried out by Uniform Construction Ltd under the direction of the Bray UDC. His case was that when the wall was removed, no precautions were taken, and this had exposed the supermarket to the extra flow of water over and above what would have been expected had thee wall been there.
Also, while the works were being carried out, the bridge had been obstructed by machinery. This also contributed to a certain backing-up effect which did not allow water through.
Bray could barely tolerate an ordinary flood, but with the added elements a particularly large, amount of water was, released.
The dam was being used in a way which was never intended. The forestry work carried out meant that heavy trucks and caterpillar vehicles were used to cross the dam. The evidence would show that the heavy vehicles had been ploughing up the top of the dam.
Mr Comyn said that during the storm, some people were lucky to escape with their lives. The judge was being asked to decide whether the matters which Superquinn Ltd complained of made a significant difference to the river flooding. They would say they did.
He said that during the case, expected to take two weeks, they would be calling 20 to 30 witnesses plus expert witnesses, such as engineers.
At the start of the case, Miss Justice Laffoy ruled that the question of liability would be heard first. Any question of damages would be deferred.
The case continues today.