DEVELOPER THOMAS McFeely, his company and workers were ordered by the High Court to leave the Priory Hall apartment complex by 6pm yesterday after Dublin City Council sought their removal over lack of progress on fire safety works being carried out at the development.
A new contractor has been identified to complete the works, the council indicated.
Mr McFeely had denied any breach of court orders concerning the works to be carried out but his lawyers said he would not object to being replaced if that was what the council wanted.
In finding there was breach by the McFeely side of court orders to carry out certain works on a weekly basis, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, expressed concern for the 240 residents who remain evacuated from the complex amid uncertainty as to when the safety works will be finished, who will pay for them and when residents will be able to return.
The judge, who earlier described the council’s approach to the situation at Priory Hall as “half-baked”, said the council must address the situation at Priory Hall “as a matter of extreme urgency”.
It was not the court’s function to direct who should do the works at Priory Hall – as the council had sought – but, he assumed, given the council had applied to have Mr McFeely removed, that “intelligent people had thought ahead”, he said.
He also directed the council to meet shortfalls being experienced by residents entitled to rent supplements but whose alternative rented accommodation was more expensive than at Priory Hall.
Lawyers for some residents said they had never wanted Mr McFeely to carry out the remedial works but were concerned what was to happen now. John O’Donnell SC said his clients were happy for someone else to do the works but there was still a question about who was going to pay for these. There could be nothing but sympathy for the residents, he said.
Hugh Mohan SC, for about 40 residents, said they were in a perilous position and some had been advised by the council to seek hostel accommodation within two to three weeks.
Conleth Bradley SC, for the council, said it had another firm of contractors ready to complete the works but could not itself fund the works and was not required under law to do so as its responsibility was fire safety. The council had sought the evacuation orders at Priory Hall as “a matter of life and death” it was involved but it was not responsible under law for what happened to persons evacuated under fire safety orders, he added.
The council had sought to have Mr McFeely fund works by the replacement firm but his lawyers said Mr McFeely would be unable to do so. A freezing order remains in place over the accounts of Mr McFeely.
Martin Hayden SC, for Mr McFeely, said he did not have the funds to pay for works by another firm but he would not oppose the council’s application for him to hand over responsibility for those works. His side also disputed the claims they had breached the court order requiring them to carry out works according to an agreed schedule.
After yesterday’s hearing, the situation concerning funding of the works remained unclear but Mr Bradley indicated a possible option, if necessary, was to seek funding from the Department of the Environment. However, counsel stressed, the taxpayer should not be made liable for works that were the responsibility of the developer who caused the problems at Priory Hall.
After hearing from experts for the council and Mr McFeely, Mr Justice Kearns made the evacuation order against Mr McFeely and Coalport Building Company Ltd, which built the 187-apartment complex at Donaghmede in 2006.
The court last month ordered fire safety works must be completed over a five-week period concluding on November 28th, but fire safety officer Donal Casey said yesterday there was inadequate progress in works to the external wall structure although works had been carried out on some 40 apartments and internal structures.
Brendan Finlay, for Mr McFeely’s side, said they had been examining various options to deal with the problem in the external wall, including injection of a non-combustible foam, and were awaiting agreement on the nature of those works.
He was unaware there had been agreement for those works to be carried out during the past week, he said.
An engineer called by the council said that in his 20-year experience of fire safety matters, he was unaware of any product injectable into walls that could address the particular situation at Priory Hall where there was timber, instead of concrete, in the external wall cavities.
Mr Justice Kearns ruled there had been a breach of the court order requiring compliance, on a weekly basis, with a schedule of works at the complex. The breach arose from failure to adequately address the problem in the outer walls, he said.
The judge then adjourned the matter for a short time to allow the council consider whether it wished to give Mr McFeely more time to do the works or have him replaced. When the court resumed, Mr Bradley said the council did not want Mr McFeely on site and wanted the court to sanction another engineer to do the works.
