Publicans Mr Hugh O'Regan and Mr Paraic Dunning are to go ahead with development works on their €16 million extension to the Morrison Hotel on Ormond Quay, Dublin, following a decision of the High Court yesterday.
Demolition works on the site had been stopped by consent a after next-door neighbour and insurance broker, Mr Stephen Faughnan, had sought injunctions restraining the businessmen and John Paul Construction from interfering with his four-storey Georgian listed building at 11 Ormond Quay.
Mr Colm Allen SC, counsel for Faughnan and SA Faughnan (Brokers) Ltd, told Mr Justice de Valera a full hearing of his application for an injunction restraining demolition works could continue into a second day.
He told the court his client was willing to have all existing undertakings not to proceed with demolition works discharged and to install constant monitoring of the demolition works to keep check on its effect on his property.
Mr Mark Sanfey, counsel for Mr O'Regan and Mr Dunning, said the works consisted of a €16 million development of the Morrison Hotel and a €6.3 million tax allowance would apply if the project was completed by the end of next year.
He said suspension of demolition works had, to date, cost his clients €67,400. Costs would increase at the rate of €14,500 a week if the delay continued.
Mr Sanfey said the proposal to the court, conceding that he did not wish to go ahead with his application for injunctive relief, represented an abject climbdown by Mr Faughnan and his company.
"As far as my clients are concerned, they have been needlessly caused to incur at least €80,000 losses," he said.
Mr Sanfey said the plaintiff was now prepared to let his clients do what he was not prepared to let them do two weeks ago. He asked that the motion for injunctive relief be struck out with costs against Mr Faughnan.
Mr Tom Mallon, counsel for John Paul Construction, said one of the allegations made by Mr Faughnan was that his computer system had gone down because of vibrations to his property and he had claimed for "repairs" totalling €7,500.
Invoices proffered, however, were in relation to new computers.
Mr Mallon said Mr Faughnan had also alleged his sewers had been damaged, but four of five invoices for repair work pre-dated his client's entry on to the site.
He said if Mr Faughnan was abandoning his application for an injunction, John Paul Construction would be seeking an early date to bring the matter to trial and recover their costs.
Mr Allen, who appeared with Mr Mark Dunne, said he had not stated his client would not go ahead with his application. He had done no more than state he would put a particular scenario to the court, which would seem to meet the demands of the matter.
Mr Justice de Valera said one of the matters he would have to decide was whether or not damages were an adequate remedy in the circumstances.
It seemed to him, from the little he had been told of the proceedings to date, that it was a matter where there was a reality in the undertaking as to damages which had been given by Mr Faughnan.
He adjourned the application until the new law term in October and gave Mr Faughnan liberty to apply to the court in the meantime should he experience any difficulties. He reserved the question of costs to the trial judge of the action.