A solicitor who claims his then family home was so damaged by building works being carried out next door in late 2002 that it was rendered unsafe to live in has told the High Court he had to "have words" with the builders on many occasions after the works began.
Mr Denis Murnaghan said that, after the works began beside his house at Pembroke Place, Dublin, there was noise in the mornings and work was going on late.
There was vibration coming from the building work and very often he would notice that even paintings and pictures in his home would be hanging sideways. The skirting boards on the staircase would become separated from the wall and he noticed cracking in various areas of his house.
At one stage when he and his son were at home, he felt a "movement" in the house and went next door. It was dark. A mechanical shovel was working and digging under his house, he said. He had told a "very nice" foreman: "You are digging under my house - you can't do that." The foreman's response was that he was under orders, Mr Murnaghan said.
He was giving evidence on the second day of his action against Markland Holdings Limited (MHL), Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin, a development company involving developer Mr Seán Mulryan and Cantier Construction Ltd, a building firm with registered offices at Dominic Street, Limerick, which went into voluntary liquidation last year.
The proceedings began after Cantier was contracted by MHL to build a three-storey apartment complex on MHL's lands at Leeson Close, Dublin, adjoining the house at Pembroke Place where, until last year, Mr Murnaghan, his wife, journalist Justine McCarthy, and their young son had lived.
MHL denies the claims and denies that the work at Leeson Close damaged Mr Murnaghan's home as alleged. It is also pleaded that if the house was damaged, this was due to previous works carried out by other parties not involved in the legal proceedings.
Cantier Construction Ltd is not contesting liability but is challenging the extent of Mr Murnaghan's claim for damages and pleads that he failed to take steps to mitigate his loss.
In his evidence late yesterday, Mr Murnaghan told of discussions between his representatives and those of MHL prior to the work starting in late 2002 and after plans had been revised.
Asked if at this stage the compromise was acceptable to both parties, he said it was, in the sense that he had got something satisfactory.