A couple who bought a semidetached house in Howth came home to find their neighbour's house had been bulldozed away, leaving "a battleground" next door, the High Court heard yesterday.
The home of Ultan and Fionnuala Todd at Quinton, Grey's Lane, Howth, is now known as the "half-house on the Hill of Howth" following the demolition, without appropriate planning permission, of the house next door, Mr John Trainor SC, with Ms Karen Fergus, for the couple, said. The demolition had structurally and aesthetically damaged the Todds' home, leaving extensive cracks and dampness.
The property's value was substantially decreased and it might be unsaleable.
Mrs Todd, a mother of three, had developed a skin condition which appeared to be due to a combination of stress and allergy to mould, counsel said. The family was traumatised.
Mr Trainor said the Todds had understood their neighbours - Bruno and Concetta Cinelli - were planning to build an extension. The Todds had lived with the situation since 1995.
It was exacerbated by the defendants' failure to remedy the dangerous condition of the Todds' home, it was claimed.
Mr Todd, a company director, and Mrs Todd, a teacher, have taken an action against the Cinellis, Kilbarrack Road, Sutton; Newtown Developments Limited, Tudor Avenue, Cypress Downs, Templeogue; Breffni Plant Hire Limited, Magenta Hall, Santry; Rafaele Cavallo, The Grove, Bettyglen, and Paul McMahon, Daleview Road, Swords, Co Dublin.
The court was told Newtown Developments were contractors engaged by the Cinellis to carry out works at Woodview while Breffni Plant Hire was engaged to carry out demolition works there. Mr Cavallo and Mr McMahon were stated to be, respectively, the architect and engineer retained by the Cinellis for work at Woodview.
Following discussions between the parties yesterday, the court was told the defendants had settled matters between themselves and the Todds' action against the defendants would proceed only as an assessment of damages.
Mr Joseph Finnegan SC, for the Cinellis, said he was consenting to a number of orders and declarations being made against his clients.
On consent, Mr Justice Peter Kelly made orders restraining the Cinellis from carrying out works to their property at Woodview without prior consultation and 14 days' notice to the Todds and their engineer. It also restrained the Cinellis from carrying out any development unless it had planning permission.
He also declared that the Todds and their successors in title were entitled to enjoy a right of support by the adjoining house for their premises and a right of protection for their party wall.
Mr Finnegan told the judge his clients had two extant planning permissions. One permission would allow reconstruction of a semi-detached house while the second was for a detached house.
His clients' intention was to construct a semi-detached dwelling, but the Cinellis' circumstances were such that they could not commit to doing that or to giving a time-scale.
Opening the case, Mr Trainor said it was one of those rare situations where exemplary damages should be awarded by the courts.
He said the Todds had bought their house in 1992. The adjoining house was called Woodview and the Todds understood there were plans to extend it but no radical demolition was to be involved.
On November 23rd, 1995, Mrs Todd came home to find Woodview had been demolished, counsel said. He said the Todds had called in engineers and no further work was carried out by the defendants. He said extensive cracking developed in the Todds' property subsequently. There were problems with dampness and there was no buttressing of the foundations. He said the side of the Todds' home which had adjoined Woodview was now encased in plastic sheeting. Mr Trainor said it was the Todds' case that some or all of the defendants knew planning permission was necessary for demolition yet carried on work without getting it. He said a planning permission secured in 1991 in respect of Woodview did not permit demolition of the sort which had occurred.
The hearing continues today.
