Compensation claims over Victoria Square apartments defects should be reconsidered, court told

Counsel for property owners forced to quit the Victoria Square complex over safety concerns argued they should be allowed to rely on retrospective legislation specially introduced to deal with their plight.

Sean Brannigan KC also claimed defendants in the group action had resorted to “procedural manoeuvering” in a bid to stop invocation of the Defective Premises Act (NI) 2024.

“There is now a completely changed legal landscape,” he insisted.

Completed back in 2008, the Victoria Square residential development on Chichester Street has been empty for the past five years.

In April 2019 residents in all 91 apartments were told to move out following assessments of a structural column.

Ulster Garden Villages Ltd, a charity which owns more than half the flats, and individual owners joined forces to sue the builders and architects involved in the city centre development.

They claimed for structural defects, negligence and loss of value in a joint lawsuit estimated to be worth up to £25m.

Construction firms Farrans and Gilbert-Ash, along with architecture company Building Design Partnership, vehemently denied any liability.

In March this year, the three defendants successfully applied to have the action struck out on the grounds that it was statute barred.

Under laws in Northern Ireland compensation claims for defective premises must be lodged within six years of a building being completed - unlike the 30 year timeframe in England and Wales.

A High Court judge dismissed the action after finding that the apartment owners were caught by that limit.

That ruling is currently under challenge at the Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, amid widespread public sympathy for those who have lost their homes, new laws were passed to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK.

The Defective Premises Act (NI) 2024 has now received royal assent and come into effect.

Due to that change to the legislative changes, lawyers representing Ulster Garden Villages and some of the other owners sought a preliminary hearing to determine how the case should be dealt with.

Mr Brannigan disputed suggestions that the Act should not be considered in the circumstances of the appeal.

He told a panel of senior judges: “The defendants are resorting to very regrettable procedural manoeuvering to stop this court from applying this very piece of legislation that has been passed to help this case.”

The barrister maintained there should be no block on seeking to rely on the new law.

“One way or another, somebody has to grapple with the question of whether or not this case has been finally determined.

“Our primary position is that it should be sent back (to the High Court)… because the first instance judge hasn’t had a chance to grapple with this yet.”

David Dunlop KC, for Farrans, acknowledged the retrospective clause in the Act but contended that it does not apply in cases where there has already been a final determination.

“Judgment was entered on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs' claims were struck out,” he said.

Following exchanges, however, agreement was reached that the apartment owners can attempt to rely on the act as part of their main challenge due for hearing next month.

Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan confirmed: “The case will remain listed in this court for two days in December to deal with the Defective Premises point on whether or not there has been a final determination.”