A woman who sued a builder and a firm of architects/engineers over the renovation and extension of her house in Co Offaly, which was described as "uninhabitable" and "a veritable shambles", has been awarded €121,000 in damages by the High Court to demolish and rebuild it.
Ms Sarah Maria Leahy's house at Ballykelly, Cadamstown, Birr, was condemned as unsafe in three reports, Mr Justice O'Sullivan noted. Her father, who had done building work, had said he had "seen more careful building on some farmhouse sheds".
The judge said he himself had visited the house and found it "a depressing and untidy sight".
After the structure was condemned, Ms Leahy, a mother of one, moved in spring 1998 from the house into a garage on site, where she remains.
In a reserved judgment yesterday, the judge held Mr Joseph Rawson, a builder, of Tinahely, Co Wicklow, and Mr Fergus Garland and Mr Peter Murphy, of Garland Murphy and Associates, a firm of architects/engineers in Tullamore, Co Offaly, liable to Ms Leahy in the sum of €121,894 and costs.
Ms Leahy had also sued Irish Permanent plc but, during the six-week case, the judge held that she had made out no case against that company. He awarded the Irish Permanent's costs to 1998 against Ms Leahy, but the issue of whether she might be indemnified by the other defendants in relation to those costs will be decided at a later date.
After the judgment, Ms Leahy said she was happy it was all over.
There were "no winners" as the matter had included the break-up of her relationship with the man she was going to marry, she said.
The court heard that Ms Leahy had had a relationship with Mr Jim Rawson, brother of Joseph Rawson, until July 1997. Joseph Rawson denied Ms Leahy's claim that he was the builder of the house, and both he and Mr Jim Rawson gave evidence that Mr Jim Rawson was the builder.
In his judgment, the judge said there was a certain informality about the works on the house site, which began about August 1996. A final certificate for the works was issued by Garland and Murphy in March 1997. Ms Leahy was unhappy with the standard of workmanship and with the fact the house was incomplete.
She engaged Mr Frank Murphy, an architectural and engineering technician, to prepare a report, and in July 1997 he reported to her that the house was poorly constructed and the roof was unsafe.
Ms Leahy had told Jim Rawson to go to his brother, Joseph, and give him two days to have the matter sorted out. Two days later Jim told her Joseph had said she could go to her solicitor, which she did the following day. Two other reports endorsed Mr Murphy's findings.
Dealing with the liability of Mr Joseph Rawson, the judge held there was a "direct labour" arrangement, as part of which Joe Rawson was liable to Ms Leahy for works set out in his two invoices, subject to agreed variations.
The judge held that Mr Rawson was not exonerated from defective block work, walls being off plumb, defective plaster work and absence of any landscaping. Mr Rawson must also accept responsibility fot the defects in the roof which gave rise to the structure being unsafe. While he accepted that Mr Rawson was not the building contractor with overall responsibility for the entire project, he could not evade responsibility for defective or incomplete delivery of the items contained in his invoices.
In relation to Mr Garland and Mr Murphy, the case against whom was pleaded on the basis that they were in partnership, the judge noted that he had held during the case that there was no evidence to show Ms Leahy had engaged Mr Garland to supervise the works.
The contractual relationship was that these defendants were to provide stage payments in respect of the work on the house, and the evidence was that such certification did not relate to the standard of work but to money being spent on the building.
On Ms Leahy's claim regarding contract against these defendants, the judge held, she had made out that claim in relation to the lack of completion of the works. The evidence was that the final certificate should issue when the works were 95 per cent complete, but the certificate issued when the works were only 65 per cent complete.
On Ms Leahy's claim of negligence against Garland Murphy, the judge said Mr Garland, and through him Mr Murphy as his partner, was under a duty of care to Ms Leahy to advise her of the standard of work of the project and had breached that duty in failing to so advise her.