Internationally acclaimed dancer and performer Michael Flatley has settled a High Court damages claim he brought over alleged deficiencies in works done at his Castlehyde property in Co Cork.
Mr Flatley’s action arose after a fire damaged the historic three-storey Castlehyde house, which dates back to 1790 and is a protected structure, on the night of June 18th/18th, 2015.
Mr Flatley has spent over €25 million renovating the house, near Fermoy, since he bought it in 1999 He claimed the fire started in an electrical panel located in a service compartment on the first-floor of the property.
The blaze then spread vertically to levels above and below the electrical compartment and there was significant fire damage within the electrical compartments and smoke damage throughout the house, which required extensive repairs.
Stronger by Nicola Hanney: An unputdownable memoir about escaping coercive control
Two German wines that are a little bit more expensive, but certainly worth it
Google Ireland head Vanessa Hartley: ‘Number one priority is making sure that we bring AI to Ireland’
June Spencer, star of The Archers, dies at 105
He claimed parties he hired to carry out certain works, including electrical works, were negligent and did not implement proper fire safety measures when working on the house.
He also claimed the property’s plumbing system was incorrectly designed, resulting in the flooding of the property’s basement when the nearby River Blackwater rises.
As a result, he sued for damages Peter Inston, who he said is a London-based architect and interior designer, and Sean R. McCarthy, a consultant engineer of The Orchard Cork Road, Fermoy, Co Cork.
He also sued consultant engineering firm Malachy Walsh & Company Limited, trading as Malachy Walsh & Partners of Mahon Technology Park, Blackrock, Cork.
They had denied Mr Flatley’s claims that they had been negligent.
At the High Court on Friday, Martin Canny, instructed by of Gavan Carty of Kent Carty solicitors, for Mr Flatley, told Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger that the proceedings had settled and could be struck out.
No details of the settlement, which is understood to be confidential, were given to the court.
Mr Flatley claimed the defendants carried out various works on the house on dates between 2001 and 2006.
Arising out of their alleged negligence, breach of contract, and misrepresentation, Mr Flatley sought damages to cover various costs he incurred including the costs of repairs and remediation works to Castlehyde.
Mr Flatley had claimed that Mr Inston had failed in his responsibility to identify deficiencies in the electrical cabinets, and fire stopping prior to issuing a certificate of practical completion, and generally in connection with his involvement in the construction works.
He alleged that Mr McCarthy, who carried out work at Castlehyde in 2006 had failed to identify deficiencies in the fire stopping and fire rating of the electrical cabinets when completing snag lists after works had been done at Castle Hyde.
It is also alleged that he failed to instruct a building contractor to carry out certain necessary works or ensure that they were correctly and fully completed by the contractor.
He claimed that Malachy Walsh & Partners failed to identify the requirement to provide appropriate fire stopping for electrical services and failed to identify this deficiency in the course of the works, on in its snagging review.
It was also alleged that the defendant was negligent in accepting certification of completion from a subcontractor that had carried out various works at Castlehyde.
In his defence, Mr McCarthy denied that he had been negligent and said that at all times he had acted within the terms of the agreement he had with the Lord of the Dance Star, and within the terms of his own profession.
He also argued that Mr Flatley’s claim against him was statute barred as it had not been brought within the legally permitted time to bring such an action.
In its defence, Malachy Walsh & Partners also said that the claim was statue barred and that there had been an inordinate delay on Mr Flatley’s part in bringing the claim.
It further denied that it was in breach of contract or that it had any obligation to carry out fire safety works in the manner alleged by Mr Flatley, with an address at Monte Carlo in Monaco.
The company added that it was not responsible for any of the damage sustained to the property as a result of the 2016 fire.
In his defence, Mr Inston denied any wrongdoing and said that the allegations had nothing to do with him. He said he could not understand why he was being sued personally by Mr Flatley.
He said that a company he had been involved with had done some interior design work for Mr Flatley.
He said neither he nor the company had any obligations to ensure that fire safety works had been properly carried out.