Healy Eames civil action rejected but €12,400 order made against husband

THE CIVIL action brought by a contractor against Senator Fidelma Healy Eames ended yesterday when the case against the Senator…

THE CIVIL action brought by a contractor against Senator Fidelma Healy Eames ended yesterday when the case against the Senator was dismissed, while an order was made against her husband Michael for €12,412.

Judge Rory McCabe at Galway Circuit Court found in favour of the plaintiff, Michael Allen, who sued the couple for money owed for plumbing and heating works at their home in Maree, Oranmore, Co Galway, three years ago.

They had denied his claims and countersued for shoddy workmanship. “The fact that the defendants tried to rewrite the contract, and force the plaintiff to accept a deal for less than the agreed price, speaks for itself,” the judge said.

He described as “implausible” Mr Eames’s version of events – that Mr Allen had carried out works on the couple’s garage without being instructed to do so – adding it was “unthinkable that a contractor would do it on spec”.

READ MORE

Ms Healy Eames became emotional in the witness box yesterday when she told the court the total rebuild of their family home had been 12 years in the planning.

She said, for this reason, she had employed the services of an interior designer for “cosmetic” work, as she wanted to make sure the job was done right.

She disputed the claim the previous day by Mr Allen that she had been in a hurry to have work on the garage completed so as to provide offices for Fine Gael and a boardroom upstairs.

“My office was in the city, I didn’t need another office in the garage – there were no discussions about it,” she replied.

The court heard she had little involvement with Mr Allen throughout the project. On one occasion he had offered to bring her to Tuam Heating and Plumbing so they could pick out sanitary wear for the house. “I thought it was wise – he was with me all day,” she said.

“He had the dimensions, he knew what was needed. I went around the store with the owner and with Michael Allen, I had a budget, and there was no discussion that something was not suitable.”

Mr Allen told the court the previous day that extra costs were incurred for works to accommodate a jacuzzi chosen by Ms Healy Eames for the master en suite bathroom.

When asked why he had not advised his client about this, he told Deirdre Browne, counsel for the defendants: “If she wanted a jacuzzi bath that size she was getting it . . .

“Fidelma is a very intelligent person, she knows what she wants.”

Judge McCabe concluded the hearing by dismissing any claim against Ms Healy Eames, whom he was satisfied was not “intimately involved” in the contract.

“The extras are by custom of the trade, there is nothing unusual about that,” he said, addressing one of the contentious issues.

“I am satisfied that the extra work was necessary . . . The choices were not the responsibility of the plaintiff, he was bound by the choices made. The defendants had ample experts of their own.”

He did not place much weight on evidence of another plumber who had eventually finished the job for cash.

“It raises suspicion that any advice he gave to the defendants may not have been impartial, and may be with his own interests in mind,” the judge said.

In relation to the garage, he said he was happy work was done at the defendants’ request. “I am satisfied that the plaintiff was at all times ready, willing, and able to finish the job, and was frustrated by the ill-advised decision to terminate the contract.”

While commending the defendants for paying some of the independent contractors for their roles – while the dispute with Mr Allen was ongoing – he was particularly critical of the “invitation” to return to work sent by their solicitor to the plaintiff.

“It was a set-up letter, written with no real intent of committing the plaintiff to start back at work,” Judge McCabe said.

“It was to set up a counter-claim. It expressly acknowledges that the first named defendant had lost all faith in the plaintiff . . . when he said he was welcome back, that was not what he meant.”

He made an order against Mr Eames for €12,412.97. He deducted money paid by the homeowners to other tradesmen working on the project, and granted costs to Mr Allen.