ARTICLE
20 December 2011

Product Liability - Latest Developments In Ongoing Pyrite Saga

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
Potential changes to Ireland’s sale of goods legislation are unlikely to impact on the ongoing pyrite cases.
Ireland Consumer Protection

Originally published in the Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Newsletter Winter 2011.

Potential changes to Ireland's sale of goods legislation are unlikely to impact on the ongoing pyrite cases. It has been alleged that, during Ireland's Celtic Tiger construction boom, some of the stone infill used in the foundations of houses and other buildings, contained too much of the mineral, pyrite, which causes structural problems.

The Expert Group(8) that is reviewing the sale of goods legislation has recently reported that exemption clauses which seek to limit the liability of the seller of goods such as infill should remain in place and remain 'subject to a test of fairness in business contracts'.

This follows a ruling in the recent case of James Elliot Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited(9), in which Mr Justice Peter Charleton, citing the Irish sale of goods legislation, stated that the infill supplied by Irish Asphalt to James Elliot was not fit for purpose nor of merchantable quality. The pyrite in the infill caused the floors in a building constructed by James Elliot to heave upwards and gave rise to structural damage.

Irish Asphalt sought to rely upon an exclusion clause, which it argued relieved it of any liability, save for reimbursing the cost of the infill. The Judge held that the exclusion clause was not adequately notified to the purchaser. The only evidence of the exclusion clause being notified to James Elliot was on the back of credit notes for rebates; this was insufficient. In any event, the Judge held that the exclusion clause was 'unfair and unreasonable' in accordance with the legislation, as the cost of the damage so far outweighed the refund of infill cost. This decision in currently under appeal to the Supreme Court.

Following the Irish Asphalt ruling, it has been reported in the media that HomeBond, a building warranty provider, circulated a letter to homeowners of affected properties, stating that, as this is a product liability issue, it will no longer process any claims in relation to pyrite and that any agreed settlements would be revoked. It was also reported that the Minister for the Environment, Phil Hogan TD, has announced the establishment of a Pyrite Panel to seek to identify a way forward on pyrite contamination in private housing through engaging with the construction industry and affected homeowners.

Footnotes

8. Report on the Legislation Governing the Sale of Good and Supply of Services - 14 July 2011

9. [2011] IEHC 269

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More