DEFECTS IN up to 750 north Dublin homes were caused by “mundane” factors relating to design and workmanship rather than the infill material used in their construction, the Commercial Court has been told.
The Lagan group of companies yesterday began its defence against claims by companies owned by developer Séamus Ross that defective infill from one of its quarries caused walls to crack and floors and pavements to swell up on three estates.
Most of the cracks appearing in the houses have no structural significance, Hugh O’Neill SC, for the Lagan group, claimed yesterday.
He accused Menolly Homes and Mr Ross’s other companies, which built the houses, of “jumping to conclusions” about the cause of the problems in the houses and trying to pass on responsibility for the defects to his clients.
In the case, Menolly is seeking indemnity against up to €60 million in damage claims that householders are expected to bring. It argues that the cracking in houses was caused by the presence of pyrite in the infill, which came from the Bay Lane quarry in north Co Dublin.
This claim was rejected yesterday by Mr O’Neill, who said that Menolly had convinced itself that pyrite was the problem and had then dismissed other contributing factors, one by one.
“We now have the situation in the country where practically every second house with cracks is attributed to pyrite. A problem which for some reason we managed to live without for many years is now said to be the root cause of endless cracking.”
Just because someone had symptoms of a brain tumour such as headache and nausea did not mean he had a tumour, Mr O’Neill said, but this was the leap that plaintiffs has sought to make.
He claimed that Menolly had rushed to get the houses constructed and sold when the market was booming and said there were defects in the design and workmanship of some units.
The case before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan is being taken by Hansfield Developments, Viking Construction, Menolly Properties and Menolly Homes.
The defendants are Irish Asphalt, Lagan Holdings Ltd and Lagan Construction Ltd and the estates concerned are Drynam Hall, Beaupark and Myrtle, all in north Dublin.
Mr O’Neill said the core issue to be decided was whether the Bay Lane material contained excessive amounts of pyrite which caused the damage.
He said there was no doubt that pyrite, along with calcite and gypsum, were in the infill supplied by Bay Lane. They were present in small amounts and the mere fact that they were present didn’t mean that the heave as alleged by Menolly had occurred.
When pyrite and calcite reacts in the presence of water and oxygen, gypsum is formed.
However, Mr O’Neill argued that even if pyrite and calcite were present and a reaction had occurred, the gypsum produced would not be enough to cause the heave alleged.
The issue of gypsum growing in fissures and laminations in houses was potentially more problematic and this had happened in Canada, he said. However, the type of rock used in the north Dublin houses was entirely different.
He said considerable force would be required to lift an entire house, but when this happened the gypsum crystals formed were different from crystals growing into a void. Crystals formed under pressure were stunted while free-growing crystals were perfectly formed.
Mr O’Neill said his clients had carried out a vast number of tests, none of which had produced any evidence of imperfectly formed crystals. There was also no evidence that the alleged pyritic heave was continuing, as one would expect.
Lagan’s testing had shown only marginal movement in the cracks, and this was due to changes in temperature. He said this “blows out of the water” the theory about pyritic heave being the cause.
Earlier, Brian O’Moore SC, for Menolly, accused the defendants of a “cynical manoeuvre” in relation to the production of documents. He said a deliberate decision had been made to hold back important documents which, if they had been available, would have changed the shape of his case.
Mr O’Moore said it was only on Monday afternoon that his team received minutes of three management meetings in the Lagan group from 1996 in which a senior executive stated that the Bay Lane quarry was “unsuitable for quarrying”. This was a matter of the utmost seriousness, said counsel.
However, Jim O’Callaghan SC, for the Lagan group, said no cynical decision had been made as they had only become aware of the documents over the weekend. The mention of the quarry being unsuitable was a reference to its proximity to Dublin airport and possible objections from Aer Rianta.
The case continues.
