A man who is being sued as the builder of a renovated and extended house in Co Offaly, described as a "shambles" and "unsafe", is disputing that he is a builder and contends he is rather a builder's labourer or chargehand who just took instructions, the High Court has heard.
Yesterday was the second day of an action by Ms Sarah Maria Leahy (46), a mother of one, Ballykelly, Cadamstown, Co Offaly, against Mr Joseph Rawson, described as a builder, Tinahely, Co Wicklow; Mr Fergus Garland and Mr Peter Murphy trading as architects/ engineers Garland Murphy and Associates, Clonminch, Tullamore, Co Offaly, and Irish Permanent plc, arising from the renovation and extension of what she intended to be her home and bed and breakfast premises at Ballykelly.
Ms Leahy claims that due to negligence, breach of duty and failure to supervise the building works adequately, the house structure is uninhabitable and she has to live in a garage on the site with her son. She alleges the house structure is unfit for habitation and will have to be demolished and replaced. She is seeking damages of €212,000.
The defendants deny the claims. It is also pleaded that, if any works are necessary, these are remedial in nature only and construction of a new structure is not required.
Cross-examined by Mr James Peart for Mr Rawson, Ms Leahy said she was in a relationship with Mr James Rawson, brother of the defendant, for eight years from 1989. He and the defendant and their four other brothers were all involved in the building trade. She had understood Mr Joseph Rawson was a builder.
In her mind, he would have been a reputable builder. She had seen work in Britain which he claimed to have done. She had not looked for qualifications from him.
Ms Leahy said Mr James Rawson had not been appointed to do any building. The quotation tendered by Mr Joseph Rawson was £1,000 cheaper than others she had sought. She said he directed others on site and was not labouring for her under a domestic arrangement.
She agreed there was no written contract. She purchased materials at his direction. She engaged labourers, electricians, plumbers and window installers. She expected the building to be to a certain standard and she trusted the engineer.
Cross-examined by Mr Martin Hayden SC, for the other defendants, Ms Leahy denied she had taken a "cheap labour" route. Mr Hayden put to her she had sought to have the house renovated and extended for £33,000 when a quantity surveyor believed the cost, at 1996 prices, would have been more than £66,000.
Mr Hayden said Mr Garland and Mr Murphy would say they understood Ms Leahy to be the builder and that a direct labour contract was involved in which Ms Leahy and Mr James Rawson were engaging direct labour and buying the materials themselves.
