THE HIGH COURT HAS heard that “international superstar” Michael Flatley and his family are “devastated” at having to leave their County-Cork period home after an “extremely hazardous” chemical residue was detected in the property.
The 65-year-old ‘Riverdance’ and ‘Lord of the Dance’ star claims that he, his wife Niamh and their son Michael St James cannot reside at the protected structure, which he has invested over €29m in since he acquired it in 1999, as it is currently unsafe for human habitation.
Mr Flatley says that it will cost some €25m and take two years to remedy the problem.
He is suing the Austin Newport Group Limited, the alleged main contractor that carried out remediation works on the property in 2016, and the insurers of Castlehyde Am Amlin Underwriting Ltd, AXA XL Underwriting Ltd, and Hamilton Managing Agency Ltd.
The entertainer is seeking damages from those parties for their alleged negligence, endangerment, deceit, breach of health and safety regulations, building regulations and breach of his property rights.
He has also brought proceedings against Mr David Cushion, who the court heard had been his accountant, and broker who had allegedly arranged the plaintiff’s insurance.
Mr Flatley claims that unknown to him Mr Cushion was paid commission and acted as an agent for the insurance firms, and has sued him for alleged breach of contract.
Mr Flatley also seeks judgement in the sum of €25m.
The court heard that last October the Flatleys left their home after experts conducting routine maintenance of the house detected high and unsafe levels of chloride residue from PVC on the walls and furniture of the property.
Mr Flatley’s counsel Ronnie Hudson Bl instructed by solicitor Max Mooney, said that the residue came from the combustion of PVC during a fire at the property in 2016, and is carcinogenic.
Counsel said that Mr Flatley claims that the main contractor, which was hired by the insurers to do remedial works, was aware of a problem with the residue while it was working on the property in 2016, but did not disclose this information to his client.
Counsel said that an email dated Aug 5th 2016 alleged sent to the defendants was recently discovered in a box of other documents allegedly left in Castlehyde.
It stated that unacceptably high levels of chloride content from the combustion of PVC had been detected, and would have “an adverse effect” on metal components in the property, counsel said.
Counsel said it is Mr Flatley’s case that the issue concerning the PVC residue should have been known about.
In his proceedings Mr Flatley claims the remediation works carried out were defective, done in a negligent manner and defects, including the PVC residue were hidden from Mr Flatley.
In a sworn statement to the court Mr Flatley says that his family have “all suffered ill health since moving back to Castlehyde,” after the remediation works.
“I believe I was one of the fittest people in Ireland, and despite the same I developed cancer,” he said, adding that he has also instructed solicitors to bring separate personal injuries proceedings.
Counsel said that in 2018, arising out of the damage caused by the fire, the insurers brought proceedings seeking damages against other parties that had carried out works on the property in 2006/07.
Those proceedings, which were brought in Mr Flatley’s name, were settled following a mediation.
Arising out of which it was agreed that the insurers would pay over €3m, while Mr Flatley himself agreed to pay almost €400,000 towards the costs of the remediating the damage caused by the 2016 fire.
As part of his latest proceedings Mr Flatley wants parts of that settlement agreement set aside.
Counsel said that his “international superstar and multi award winning client” and his family are “devastated and distraught” over having to leave their home.
The matter came before Mr Justice Liam Kennedy the High Court on Tuesday.
Following an ex-parte application to the court the judge said that he was satisfied to grant the plaintiff permission to serve the proceedings on the defendants which are all based in the UK.
The court noted that such an application was necessary following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.
The judge said that at this stage of the proceedings, he was not prepared to grant an injunction requiring some of the defendants to preserve any reports they may have on the works allegedly carried out.
The judge noted Mr Flatley’s concerns on this issue that documents may be destroyed, but said that there was insufficient evidence before the court that would allow it to grant such an order.
The court adjourned that aspect of the action, adding that it could be re-entered at a later date.
The case will return before the court at a later date.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say