Defective Blocks Ireland has welcomed a decision by the National Standards Authority of Ireland not to proceed with its motion concerning testing methodology in the long-running High Court defective blocks litigation.
The case was before Ms Justice Eileen Roberts in the Commercial Court this week.
The court heard that, following a meeting between the parties’ experts at the Danish Technological Institute in Copenhagen in August, the NSAI was no longer proceeding with its motion.
The development follows an 18-month dispute over the proposed testing process.
John Gordon SC, for the homeowners, told the court they intend to seek substantial legal costs arising from the motions.
He argued those costs should be dealt with now, rather than at the end of the wider litigation.
However, counsel for the NSAI said his client did not accept the characterisation put forward by Mr Gordon, and a submission was made that the costs should be dealt with as part of the final costs award.
Ms Justice Roberts has listed a half-day hearing for October 21st to deal with the costs issue.
**********
(Release in Full)
Defective Blocks Ireland (DBI) has welcomed the decision by the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) not to proceed with its motion concerning testing methodology in the long-running High Court defective blocks litigation.
At today’s hearing before Ms Justice Eileen Roberts in the Commercial Court, the Court was told that, following an in-person meeting between the parties’ experts at the Danish Technological Institute (DTI) in Copenhagen on 26 August, the NSAI was no longer proceeding with its motion.
The development follows more than 18 months of dispute over the proposed testing process. John Gordon SC, counsel for the homeowners, told the Court that the plaintiffs had argued “from the beginning” that the NSAI application for directions, dating from May 2025, was “entirely ill-conceived”.
Mr Gordon told the Court: “What happened in August was that their expert finally abandoned the process which he was advocating for over eighteen months, accepting that it was in fact not practicable.”
He said the difficulties with the proposed process had been “pointed out endlessly in affidavits and in correspondence” and that a new approach had subsequently been adopted. “Obviously, in those circumstances, the motions are no longer necessary,” Mr Gordon said.
Mr Gordon told the Court that the homeowners intend to pursue the substantial legal costs incurred in responding to the motions.
He said the process had ultimately resulted in the August engagement “when they accepted that their proposal couldn’t actually work”.
Mr Gordon argued that the costs associated with the motions should be determined now rather than left until the conclusion of the wider litigation.
“There’s a very substantial amount of costs in issue here,” he told the Court. He said the homeowners regarded the costs as discrete issues that “ought to be determined at this stage rather than being left to the end of the case”.
Counsel for the NSAI told the Court that his client “does not accept the characterisation put forward by Mr Gordon”, which Ms Justice Roberts acknowledged.
The issue of costs remains outstanding. The NSAI submitted that the costs of the motions should be dealt with as part of the final costs award in the overall case, while the homeowners are seeking to have them determined separately at this stage.
Ms Justice Roberts has listed a half-day hearing for 21 October to deal with the costs issue.
Today’s development follows the Court’s intervention in July, when Ms Justice Roberts expressed frustration at delays surrounding the expert testing and gave the parties what was described as a “last chance” to narrow or resolve the dispute over testing methodology.
A spokesperson for Defective Blocks Ireland said: “Today represents an important step forward for homeowners who have consistently wanted onething and that is for the necessary testing to be completed so that the evidence can be established. We welcome the fact that this particular obstacle has now been removed.
There can be no justification for further unnecessary delay. The priority must be to complete the outstanding expert work and allow the substantive legal case to progress.”
