Developer loses court bid over Priory Hall
While refusing to discharge Mr O’Mahony, the President of the High Court indicated essential responsibility for carrying out works to address serious fire safety concerns at the complex rests with developer Tom McFeely and Coalport Building Company Ltd, which built the complex in 2006 and whose directors are Mr McFeely and his brother Noel.
Dublin City Council this month secured orders from Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns against Mr O’Mahony; Mr McFeely and Coalport requiring evacuation of the complex and remedial works to be completed by the end of November.
Yesterday, the judge ruled there was an adequate basis for Mr O’Mahony being a party to the case, including his remaining registered as an owner of the Priory Hall lands and being described on a legal document in 2007 as a “lessor” of an apartment at Priory Hall.
Owners and occupiers of lands are affected by the Fire Safety Act 1991 and, while he accepted Mr O’Mahony had raised issues concerning the consequences when ownership of lands is transferred, the judge would not remove him from the case.
Gary McCarthy, counsel for Mr O’Mahony, had argued his client had no responsibility for Priory Hall on grounds including he was not involved in building it and had a written agreement of March 2009 with Mr McFeely to transfer his ownership of the Priory Hall lands to Mr McFeely. Irish Nationwide, which has a charge over the lands, prevented that transfer.
Mr O’Mahony never had any role in Coalport, had no entitlement to engage in remedial works at Priory Hall and no ability to pay for such works, counsel added.
While refusing to remove Mr O’Mahony, Mr Justice Kearns said he would make no executive orders against Mr O’Mahony in circumstances where Mr McFeely and Coalport had undertaken to carry out the remedial works. He agreed to return Mr Mahony’s passport on his undertaking to attend court if required and discharged an earlier order freezing his assets.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns said Mr O’Mahony had in 2004, before Priory Hall was built, undertaken with Mr McFeely there would be full compliance with fire safety requirements. When a fire safety notice was served on the two men in 2009, Mr O’Mahony had not challenged its propriety and he was convicted under that notice at the district court.
The district court had differentiated between the responsibilities of Mr McFeely and Mr O’Mahony and the High Court was also cognisant of that, the judge said. The district court found Mr O’Mahony had a lesser role and gave him a lesser penalty.
Tomorrow, the judge will be updated on the progress of remedial works at Priory Hall, to be completed by November 28.


