A High Court judge will travel to Co Offaly on Friday to inspect a house which is at the centre of a long-running action for damages and has been described as unsafe and unhabitable.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan told counsel yesterday he intended to visit the house at Ballykelly, Cadamstown.
Ms Sarah Maria Leahy (46) is suing Mr Joseph Rawson, described as a builder, of Coolafancy, Tinahely, Co Wicklow and Mr Fergus Garland and Mr Peter Murphy, Garland Murphy and Associates, a firm of architects/engineers of Tullamore, Co Offaly, over the renovation and extension of the house.
Ms Leahy claims Mr Rawson was the builder of the house which she alleges is unsafe. She is seeking €212,000 in damages to demolish the house and replace it with a new structure. The defendants deny the claims.
As the case entered its fifth week yesterday, Mr Garland said he had been asked by Irish Permanent plc in April 1996 to carry out a valuation on Ms Leahy's property and did so. Around the end of April, Ms Leahy had contacted him and asked him to supervise the works on the property. He had declined to act as supervisor but had said he would issue the stage payment certificates.
In late July 1996, Ms Leahy had unexpectedly called to his office with Mr Jim Rawson. (The court has heard Mr Rawson is a brother of the defendant Mr Joseph Rawson and was Ms Leahy's partner until July 1997). Mr Garland said Ms Leahy had introduced Mr Jim Rawson as "her builder".
There was a discussion about how much money she had received approval for and how much would be required at various work stages.
Mr Garland said he had another appointment and had to go. When he left, Ms Leahy was discussing changes to the roof of the house with Mr Garland's colleague, Mr Murphy. Mr Garland said he had not raised an issue about the roof and it was Ms Leahy and Mr Rawson who had said they wished to change the roof in some way.
Ms Leahy telephoned him about the end of August to say her father had expressed concerns about the tie-in of the new extension with the old structure on site.
Mr Garland said he told her he would check it out. He rang her the next day to say he was satisfied about how the new structure was being tied in with the old.
He never told Ms Leahy not to worry and that she would soon be sitting outside the new house, drinking a glass of wine.
In cross-examination, Mr Garland said the final certificate of compliance he had issued fulfilled what he understood to be his obligation to Ms Leahy.
A certificate was issued for title purposes and so she could draw down the final stage payment. He accepted the roof and some other works did not comply with building regulations or good building practice. He accepted the property was not complete when the final certificate was issued.