Skip to content
#Open journalism No news is bad news

Your contributions will help us continue to deliver the stories that are important to you

Support The Journal
Construction began on the site earlier this year.
Construction began on the site earlier this year.
Image: Sam Boal/

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.
Jul 28th 2017, 7:33 PM 18,445 0

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”.

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

Send a tip to the author

Aodhan O Faolain


    Back to top