Vast sums spent on 'defective' infill case should be spent fixing homes, says counsel

THE “VAST resources” being spent on the lengthy court battle between Menolly Homes and companies in the Lagan group over cracks in hundreds of homes in north Dublin allegedly caused by defective infill would be better spent on repairing the houses, the High Court was told yesterday.

Some 400 homes are allegedly affected, with one lawyer estimating the repair bill for his 175 clients at €17.5 million, based on a minimum €100,000 claim. Lawyers for the Lagan companies, who deny liability, contended the “vast majority” of defects were of “no sigificance”.

The Menolly/Lagan action, which began a year ago, has incurred costs of several million euro and is expected to run for many more months. Judgment will then have to be delivered after which an appeal could be brought to the Supreme Court, a process that would last years. The final costs bill is likely to be well over €20 million, sources estimate.

Paul Gardiner SC, for 175 homeowners, said they were very concerned about where the money is going to come from to repair the houses as the Menolly and Lagan sides were using vast resources to fight each other. There was a “non-court forum” to resolve their dispute but they could not be forced to do that, he added.

Senan Allen SC, for other homeowners, said it would be “vastly cheaper” to repair all the affected houses. The way to do that was by hearing the homeowners’ cases.

The action is by Menolly Homes against Irish Asphalt Limited (IAL) and companies in the Lagan group and arises from defects, allegedly as a result of defective pyrite infill, in the Drynam, Myrtle and Beaupark estates.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan, who is case-managing the Menolly/Lagan action, was asked to allow test actions by homeowners against Menolly to proceed parallel to the Menolly/Lagan proceedings. He will rule on that next Tuesday. The judge last week refused to halt the action despite finding “negligent” and “blameworthy” failure by both sides to discover documents.

Mr Gardiner said his clients’ cases had been deferred after they were told in November 2008 it was hoped the Menolly/Lagan case would end by July 2009. The case would not finish by July 2010.

Brian O’Moore SC, for Menolly, said it was very conscious of the homeowners’ plight but it was in their interest to have this case conclude first and to have the issues against Lagan resolved.

Menolly was putting significant resources into the case to “rope in” the party liable for the damage and it was not in the interests of homeowners to have Menolly involved in several cases at once.

Hugh O’Neill SC, for the Lagan defendants, said it was their case the “vast majority” of defects were of “no significance whatever”.

He said his side would have resource dificulties if it was sought to address the third-party issues in the homeowners’ cases in parallel proceedings. There was no reason why cases involving houses which Lagan claims include no material from IAL’s quarry should not proceed against Menolly, he added.