Developer's evidence 'flatly contradicts' claims at the centre of penthouse overheating row

High Court reporters

A development company at the centre of a dispute with a businesswoman over alleged overheating in her €6 million Ballsbridge, Dublin, penthouse apartment "flatly contradicts" her claims, the High Court heard.

Aideen O'Byrne claims that, due to a failure to maintain or repair the district heating system, temperatures in her Lansdowne Place apartment, thought to be the most expensive in Ireland at the time she bought it, have reached "unbearable" highs of 33 degrees.   Temperatures in lobby areas have been recorded to reach 29 degrees, she says.

Ms O'Byrne was last week given an interim injunction preventing the developer from transferring its beneficial interest in the buildings and common areas to an owners management company until problems are resolved.  The case is against the developer, Copper Bridge C 2015 ICAV, and O'Connor Sutton Cronin and Associates Ltd.

That application was made ex parte, or with only the O' Byrne side represented.

The case returned before Mr Justice Brian Cregan on Thursday, when Hugh O'Keeffe SC, for Copper Bridge, said his client has a full defence to the merits of this case and experts who "flatly contradict" the claims of Ms Byrne.

"We spent three years trying to address them without any progress," he said. He was seeking an early trial as his side wanted the matter determined as quickly as possible.

Counsel said it was also their case in relation to the substance of the injunction preventing a transfer of interests that the transfer had already happened in accordance with required standards upon the making of a statutory declaration of completion of the development under the Multi-Unit Development (MUD) Act.

The legal interest had previously been transferred, and the transfer in accordance with MUD takes place upon completion of the statutory declaration, he said.

Gavin Mooney SC, for Ms O'Byrne, said it was curious that the statutory declaration took place on April 3rd when his side had already been on inquiry into the matter.

Counsel said if he now has to seek to change his application to one of setting aside that transfer of beneficial interest, "then so be it".

Mr Mooney also said he was also seeking to join the Lansdowne Place Owners' Management Company (OMC) as a defendant in the proceedings.

While the first application was only against the developer, after "we did not get very far", his side approached the OMC to see if they would assist, he said.

"But it was not forthcoming, and the OMC has now targeted us because we seem to have annoyed them," he said.

Siobhán Gaffney BL, for the OMC, said her clients first wanted to set out on affidavit their position in relation to Mr Mooney's application, but it was their case that the OMC was now "being dragged into the proceedings" when it is only responsible for the common areas, and the issue in relation to overheating was a structural and engineering matter.

Deirdre NíFhloinn BL, for the co-defendant, said they supported the developer's request for an early trial.

Mr Justice Cregan said that given that the overheating also allegedly affects the common areas and that excess heat is alleged to be coming from pipes and fittings, he was satisfied to join the OMC to the case. Ms O'Byrne would have to amend her papers, he said.

Mr Mooney asked that he be allowed to do so after a forensic engineer's report is completed shortly.

The judge, who continued the terms of the interim injunction, gave directions for exchange of papers and adjourned the matter to late next month.