Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Claim against architect arising from pyrite damage to proceed despite 2012 commencement
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms refusal to dismiss a negligence case against architects involved in the design and construction of a house with pyrite-induced structural defects. The plaintiffs had faced significant delays in progressing the case, which commenced in 2012. Despite acknowledging inordinate and inexcusable delays by the plaintiffs, the Court found no substantial prejudice to the defendants that would render a fair trial impossible. The defendants' failure to respond to discovery requests was noted as a contributing factor to the delays. The Court emphasized the case's reliance on documentary evidence over oral testimony, diminishing the impact of the elapsed time on the defendants' ability to defend the case.
Court of Appeal, negligence, structural defects, pyrite, architects, professional indemnity insurance, discovery, delay, fair trial, prejudice, documents case, Primor plc v Stokes Kennedy Crowley, O’Domhnaill v Merrick, balance of justice, reputational damage, inordinate delay, inexcusable delay, dismissal of proceedings.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
