Lynch v Beale, Patrick J Murphy Ltd & O'Regan Precast Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | HAMILTON J.: |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1974 |
| Neutral Citation | 1965 WJSC-HC 4859 |
| Docket Number | No. 2446P/1969 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 24 January 1974 |
1965 WJSC-HC 4859
The Plaintiff's claim in this case is for damages for loss and injury suffered by him as a result of the partial subsidence and internal collapse of a hotel, his property and situate at Midleton in the County of Cork.
In the proceedings as originally instituted, he claimed such damages against the first-named Defendant, Charles Beale the architect employed by him in connection with the erection of the said hotel and the second-named Defendant, the Building Contractor employed by him to erect the hotel in accordance with the plans and specification prepared by the first-named Defendant the architect.
In accordance with directions from the architect, the second-named Defendant Company had employed Messrs. O'Regan Precast Limited to manufacture, supply and install the pre-stressed concrete beams which were to be used in the erection of the hotel. In view of the allegations of negligence contained in the Statement of Claim delivered to the then Defendants on the 20th day of August, 1970, the second-named Defendant applied to the Court in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Liability Act,1961for liberty to issue and serve a Third Party Notice on the said O'Regan Precast Limited, which said Order was duly granted.
By Order dated the 13th day of April 1973, Messrs. O'Regan Precast Limited were added as Defendants in the proceedings and this Order was affirmed by the Supreme Court by Order made the 15th day of February 1974.
An amended Statement of Claim was delivered on the three present Defendants and the Plaintiff's claim comes before this Court on the basis of the allegations set forth in the said amended Statement of Claim.
The Plaintiff at Paragraph 8 thereof claims that the loss and damage which he has suffered and alleges that he will suffer were and are due to breach of contract, negligence and failure to exercise proper care and skill in the performance and discharge of their respective obligations on the part ofall the Defendants.
The duties and obligations imposed on the Defendants and each of them are alleged by the Plaintiff in his amended Statement of Claim to have arisen because of the following facts:-
(1) that the first-named Defendant was retained for reward by the Plaintiff as his Architect to inspect and examine the site on which the said hotel was to be built, to design a stable hotel and to prepare drawings and a specification therefor, to act as Architect for the purposes of the said contract, to supervise the construction of the said hotel and generally advise the Plaintiff and look after his interest in all matters relating thereto.
(2) that the first-named Defendant prepared drawings and specifications for the erection of the said hotel and on the 14th day of April 1967 the second-named Defendants entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to erect the hotel in accordance with such drawings and specifications which were annexed to the contract and subject to the conditions thereto annexed for the sum of £26,799:7:5 or such other sum as should become payable thereunder.
(3) that the first and second-named Defendants knew that the Plaintiff required the said hotel to be so constructed that it would be capable of supporting an extra storey when the Plaintiff should decide to have the same added and that they both agreed and undertook that it would be so constructed.
(4) that the said drawings and specifications provided for the use of pre-stressed concrete beams over the complete first floor area of the building.
(5) that the design construction and manufacture of such pre-stressed concrete beams was entrusted by the first and second-named Defendants to the third-named Defendants who were experts in the design, construction and manufacture of such pre-stressed beams and who were supplied with copies of the drawings and specifications which are alleged to show that the Plaintiff required the said building should be so constructed that it would be capable of supporting an extra storey if and when the Plaintiff should decide to have same added.
(6) that the third-named Defendants agreed and undertook to design, construct and manufacture such pre-stressed concrete beams suitable for the load that they would be required to carry including such additional load as would be imposed thereon by the building of an extra storey.
(7) that in purported performance of the said contract the second-named Defendant entered on the site and erected a building thereon which was completed and handed over to the Plaintiff for use as a hotel in about the month of November 1967.
(8) that serious structural defects became apparent at a very early stage; a settlement developed in the region of the back wall due to foundation failure and many of the pre-stressed concrete beams cracked and sheared due to the fact that they had not so been constructed as to he capable of taking either the loading asked for by the drawings or the loading in fact imposed on them.
(9) that attempts were made to remedy the structural defects but these were unsuccessful.
(10) that the situation deteriorated to the extent that the building became dangerous and the Plaintiff was obliged to cease carrying on business therein and leave the premises with his family. Shortly after the entire of the internal structure collapsed.
(11) that the only course open to the Plaintiff is to have the site cleared and a new hotel erected thereon.
On the basis of these facts as set out in the amended Statement of Claim the Plaintiff claims that all the Defendants were guilty of negligence, breach of contract and failure to exercise proper care and skill in the performance and discharge of their respective obligations.
There is no need for me at this stage to refer to the Detailed Particulars of Negligence and Breach of Contract as set forth in the Amended Statement of Claim.
In his Defence, the first-named Defendant admits that he agreed with the Plaintiff to act as his Architect in the construction of the said hotel but denies that he was guilty of the alleged or any negligence or breach of contract. He alleges however that, inter alia,
1. His authority, functions, duties and obligations as the Plaintiff's Architect were subject to the requirements of Bord Failte Eireann and were controlled by and subject to the directions of one Robert Creedon who was appointed by Bord Failte Eireann to be their Architect.
2. That he did not agree or undertake that the hotel should be so constructed that it would be capable of supporting an extra storey as alleged by the Plaintiff.
3. That the drawings and specifications prepared by him for the said work were altered in many material respects by the Plaintiff and the second-named Defendant.
4. That the site was inspected and approved by the Plaintiff, the Bord Failte Architect and the second-named Defendant after full and careful investigation.
5. That the Plaintiff with a view to effecting economy frequently required reductions and variations in structural detail to be made.
6. That the design of the pre-stressed concrete floor was with the consent of the Plaintiff and the Bord Failte Architect and the second-named Defendant entrusted to the specialist firm of O'Regan Precast Limited who were given the task of designing constructing and manufacturing and supervising the erection of same.
7. That O'Regan Precast Limited failed and neglected adequately to carry out the job.
8. That the beams put under the cross and corridor walls by O'Regan Precast Limited were not capable of supporting the loading thereby causing the damage complained of by the Plaintiff without any neglect or default on his part.
9. That the Plaintiff and the second-named Defendant placed 2/600 gallon tanks on the main roof in lieu of 1/200 gallon tank as provided in the specification.
These are the main points raised by the first-named Defendant in his Defence and are not intended to include all the matters raised by him therein.
The second-named Defendants in their Defence allege that they carried out the erection of the hotel to the design and under the supervision of and in compliance with the instructions of the first-named Defendant, the Plaintiff's Architect and deny that they were guilty of negligence and breach of contract.
They allege that if the joists were inadequate to carry the said loads, the said inadequacy arose by reason of the fact that the said joists were of inadequate design in shear and were provided by the third-named Defendants on the instructions of the first-named Defendant.
I do not consider it necessary at this stage to deal with the other matters raised by this Defendant in its Defence.
The third-named Defendant in its Defence denies the allegations made against it in the Amended Statement of Claim and in particular denies that:-
1. It knew that the Plaintiff required the hotel to be so constructed that it would be capable of supporting an extra storey or that it agreed or undertook that it would construct the hotel so as to be capable of supporting the extra storey.
2. The drawing and specification for the construction of the hotel provided for the use of pre-stressed concrete beams over the complete first floor area of the hotel.
3. It was supplied with copies of the drawings and specifications.
4. That the hotel was built in accordance with the drawings and specifications because same were materially altered by the erection of a reinforced concrete roof to the said hotel which was a material alteration from the said drawings and specifications which provided for a timber roof.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leo Larkin and Others v Iqbal Joosub and Others
... ... 2) 2002 1 IR 84 2002 1 ILRM 481 LYNCH v BEALE UNREP HIGH COURT HAMILTON 23.11.1974 ... ACT 1961 S21(2) PATTERSON v MURPHY 1978 ILRM 85 CARROLL v CLARE CO COUNCIL ... ...