Readers like you keep news free for everyone.

More than 5,000 readers have already pitched in to keep free access to The Journal.

For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can help keep paywalls away.

Support us today
Not now
Advertisement

Residents who claimed their properties were damaged by children's hospital construction settle case

No details of the settlement agreement were revealed in open court and the terms of the resolution are confidential.

Construction began on the site earlier this year.
Construction began on the site earlier this year.
Image: Sam Boal/RollingNews.ie

THE PARTIES INVOLVED in a dispute over damage allegedly caused to houses located near the site of the new National Children’s Hospital in Dublin have reached an agreement.

Residents from the O’Reilly Avenue, Ceannt Fort and Mount Brown areas of Dublin 8 had sued the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board and BAM Civil Limited, the firm which is building the hospital.

The residents, who live close to St James’s Hospital in Dublin where the new €1 billion children’s hospital is being constructed, claim their homes have been damaged as a result of certain works being carried out by the defendants.

They had sought orders including an injunction preventing works being done on the site until steps are taken to protect their property from sustaining any further damage.

The case, which was opposed by both BAM and the Hospital Development Board, opened before Justice Richard Humphreys this morning.

However, following negotiations between the sides, John Rogers SC for the residents told the court that the application for injunctions had been resolved “to the satisfaction of all parties”.

It was also agreed that the case could be adjourned until the full hearing of the action.

No details of the settlement agreement were revealed in open court and the terms of the resolution are confidential.

Justice Humphreys congratulated the parties on coming to an agreement.

Opening the case, Rogers said his clients are not opposed to the new hospital being built. The injunction he added was not some “rogue application” brought by people with “a different agenda”.

Making a difference

A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.

Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can make sure we can keep reliable, meaningful news open to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

They had sought an order primarily over the “significant damage” their properties had already sustained.

BAM, represented by Shane Murphy SC and the board represented by Jarlath Fitzsimons SC, urged the court not to grant the injunctions sought.

If granted such orders could have halted works on the site of the new hospital, which is expected to take three years to build.

They had offered to go to mediation and seek a resolution to any difficulties that may have been caused by the construction works, the court also heard.

Read: Charlie Gard, the baby at the centre of a legal battle, has died

Read: ‘We’re not going to help the UK come up with a border solution’ – Varadkar

About the author:

Aodhan O Faolain

Read next:

COMMENTS