A Dublin solicitor who had sought more than €1 million in compensation arising from damage caused to his dwelling as a result of building works on a nearby house has been awarded €238,909 by the High Court.
Ms Justice Laffoy said Mr Denis Murnaghan's claim was "transparently unreasonable" and based on "manifestly unreasonable" decisions, including his decision to sell his former home.
The issue of who pays the substantial costs of the 12-day hearing will be decided by Ms Justice Laffoy on December 9th.
Mr Murnaghan had claimed his former home at Pembroke Place, Dublin, was severely damaged during the building of an apartment complex next door.
He sued Markland Holdings Ltd, a Dublin development company, and the now-defunct Cantier Construction Ltd of Limerick.
Mr Murnaghan owned the mews residence at No 5 Pembroke Place. He sold the house last year for €830,000. Markland Holdings began work next door in November 2002.
Mr Murnaghan told the court he and his wife, Ms Justine McCarthy, and their son left their home and took a one-year lease on a house in Wellington Road, at a monthly rent of €5,000. The lease was extended and the family never reoccupied No 5.
Ms Justice Laffoy said Mr Murnaghan presented his claim for special damages on the basis of demolishing and rebuilding No 5 and on the basis of acquiring an alternative to it.
The amount of the claim on the first basis was in excess of €1 million while on the second basis it was €1,187,687. The latter figure was quantified on the basis that Mr Murnaghan would incur a shortfall of €920,000 on the acquisition of a comparable house to No 5 after allowance for the sum of €830,000 which he received on the sale of it.
Ms Justice Laffoy said there could be no question of Mr Murnaghan being awarded damages commensurate with the cost of demolishing and rebuilding No 5 as he had ceased to be the owner of the dwelling.
Ms Justice Laffoy allowed damages against both defendants under a number of headings. She awarded €175,000 damage for the diminution in the value of No 5 and €2,701 for the cost of works to No 5. For alternative rent, she awarded €48,750; €612 for stamp duty on the lease; €1,846 for removal expenses and €10,000 in general damages.
If No 5 had been properly marketed on the knowledge available to the court, it would probably have fetched between €150,000 to €200,000 less than what she believed to be its market value if undamaged. The mid point of that range would fairly represent the diminution in value of the property.
It followed that the value of No 5 in its damaged condition considerably exceeded the price achieved by Mr Murnaghan on the sale price of €830,000 and he must bear that loss.
For whatever reason, he chose to sell the property when he did, the judge said. That decision to sell and acquire an alternative property would have been reasonable if the house would have to be reconstructed in order to be structurally sound. However, on the evidence she had found, that was not the case.
The judge said Mr Murnaghan had made decisions which were manifestly unreasonable, and on the basis of such, he advanced claims which were transparently unreasonable and could not be reflected in the award of damages.