McGee & Anor -v- Alcorn & Anor [2016] IEHC 59 (05 February 2016)

McGee & Anor -v- Alcorn & Anor [2016] IEHC 59 (05 February 2016)

The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs as purchasers relying on his certificates, given proximity and foreseeability. Damages for remedial works (Phase 1 and reasonable Phase 2) are recoverable, but proposed Phase 3 works are not justified as they are aesthetic and disproportionate. Diminution in value is recoverable to the extent established by evidence. Emotional distress damages are not recoverable. The law in Ireland allows recovery for economic loss in defective buildings where proximity and foreseeability exist, and it is just and reasonable to impose liability.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 59
Parties
Plaintiff: Kevin McGee; Plaintiff: Grit McGee; Defendant: Mark Alcorn; Defendant: Michael Friel trading as Michael Friel Architectural Design and Surveying
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim for Economic Loss and Damages / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; defendant liable for remedial works and diminution in value, not for proposed aesthetic works or emotional distress.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Economic Loss, Duty of Care, Professional Liability, Damages, Building Regulations
Tort Law Construction Law Negligence Economic Loss Duty of Care Professional Liability Damages Building Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin McGee

Plaintiff

Grit McGee

Plaintiff

Mark Alcorn

Defendant

Michael Friel trading as Michael Friel Architectural Design and Surveying

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence Claim for Economic Loss and Damages / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the defendant liable in negligence for pure economic loss arising from defective construction and certification?
  2. 2 Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs as purchasers relying on his certificates?
  3. 3 Are damages for remedial works, aesthetic works, and diminution in value recoverable?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs as purchasers relying on his certificates, given proximity and foreseeability. Damages for remedial works (Phase 1 and reasonable Phase 2) are recoverable, but proposed Phase 3 works are not justified as they are aesthetic and disproportionate. Diminution in value is recoverable to the extent established by evidence. Emotional distress damages are not recoverable. The law in Ireland allows recovery for economic loss in defective buildings where proximity and foreseeability exist, and it is just and reasonable to impose liability.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; defendant liable for remedial works and diminution in value, not for proposed aesthetic works or emotional distress.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay €129,000 for Phase 1 remedial works.
  • Defendant to pay €38,525 for Phase 2 reinstatement works (subject to adjustment if evidence supports lower figure).