Priory Hall developer ordered out

Developer Thomas McFeely, his company and workers have been ordered by the High Court to leave the Priory Hall apartment complex by tonight.

Dublin City Council sought their removal over lack of progress in fire safety works being carried out at the development. A new contractor has been identified to complete the works, the council indicated.

Mr McFeely had denied any breach of court orders concerning the works to be carried out but his lawyers said he would not object to being replaced if that was what the council wanted.

In finding there was breach by the McFeelly side of court orders to carry out certain works on a weekly basis, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, expressed concern for the 240 residents who remain evacuated from the complex amid uncertainty as to when the safety works will be finished, who will pay for them and when they will be able to return.

The judge, who earlier described the council’s approach to the situation at Priory Hall as “half-baked”, said the council must address the situation “as a matter of extreme urgency”.

It was not the court’s function to direct who should do the works at Priory Hall - as the council had sought - but,  given the council had applied to have Mr McFeely removed, he said he asumed that “intelligent people had thought ahead”.

He also directed the council to meet shortfalls being experienced by residents entitled to rent supplements but whose alternative rented accommodation is more expensive than at Priory Hall.

Lawyers for some residents said they had never wanted Mr McFeely to carry out the remedial works but were concerned what was to happen now. John O’Donnell SC said his clients were happy for someone else do the works but there was still a question about who was going to pay for these. There could be nothing but sympathy for the residents, he said.

Hugh Mohan SC, for about 40 residents, said they were in a perilous position and some had been advised by the council to seek hostel accommodation within two to three weeks.

Conleth Bradley SC, for the council, said it has another firm of contractors ready to complete the works but cannot itself fund the works and was not required under law to do so as its responsibility was fire safety.

The council had sought the evacuation orders at Priory Hall as “a matter of life and death” was involved but it was not responsible under law for what happened to persons forced to leave under fire safety orders, he added.

The council had sought to have Mr McFeely fund works by the replacement firm but his lawyers said Mr McFeely would be unable to do so. A freezing order remains in place over the accounts of Mr McFeely.

Martin Hayden SC, for Mr McFeely, said he did not have the funds to pay for works by another firm but he would not oppose the council’s application for him to hand over responsibility for those works. His side also disputed the claims they had breached the court order requiring them to carry out works according to an agreed schedule.

A number of residents were in court for the hearing during which there some heated exchanges between lawyers for the council and residents. At one stage, Mr Bradley objected that Mr O’Donnell had characterised the council’s submissions as “waffle”.