Engineers and council responsible for knocking family home

The High Court has found that consultant engineers and Limerick County Council were responsible for the wrongful demolition of a family home during the construction of a new dual carriageway between Limerick and Nenagh.

Brian and Mary O’Shaughnessy described the destruction of their single-storey two-bedroom old Irish farmhouse, ‘The Hollows’ at Annaholty, Birdhill, Co Tipperary on September 6, 2006, was a nightmare. The site was never used for the new road.

Giving judgment, Mr Justice Donald Binchy, who said it was “abundantly clear” what happened “was not down to any single act”, found the consultant engineers, which was a joint venture called RPS Scetauroute, was 70% responsible while the local authority was 30% responsible.

A third party which carried out the actual demolition was found not to be negligent in the matter.

The O’Shaughnessys sought damages for alleged negligence from several parties including Limerick CC/The National Roads Authority, who it was claimed were both responsible for the operation, design and acquisition of land, and oversaw construction of the N7 dual carriageway scheme.

They also sued RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd and EGIS Route Scetauroute SA (which was a joint venture in the name of RPS Scetauroute JV) which was contracted by Limerick CC to carry out certain works on the carriageway and Midland Fencing Ltd, a subcontractor which carried out the demolition works.

The defendants all denied negligence. Limerick CC/NRA, RPS, and Midland all served each other with notices of contribution and indemnity.

In his judgment the Judge said the demolition was “as a consequence of a series of acts and omissions in which both LCC and RPS play a part.” The events leading to the demolition included that an engineer for RPS, following consultations with LCC, had wrongly designated a plot of land 156a which was to be acquired, as being derelict.

LCC’s staff, when looking for a plot of land that matched that description then mistakenly photographed and labelled the O’Shaughnessy’s home as being plot 156a.

In early 2006 LCC included plot 156a on a list of properties to be demolished. LCC then provided RPS with the list, including a photograph of the O’Shaughnessy’s home describing it as plot 156a. The judge said there was also a failure by engineers to query why works were being carried out on the house, and a lack of familiarity with the boundaries of the site the subject of a CPO.

The judge said he was satisfied RPS and LCC owed a duty of care to the O’Shaughnessys, and it went without saying that their home should not have been demolished.