Woman who got house makeover on Room to Improve settles damages case

The house before the 'makeover'
The house before the 'makeover'

A woman whose South Dublin home featured on RTE's 'Room to Improve' programme has settled her damages claim against presenter architect, Dermot Bannon, the show's producers and the firm that carried out works on her property.

The home of Mary Moore from Rathcoole in south county Dublin featured on the architectural renovation TV series in a programme broadcast in July 2009 entitled "Rathcoole Gallery" when works were carried out on her three bedroom home at a cost of €100,000.

However, Mrs Moore was unhappy with what was done to her home and claimed remedial works were required to carry out repairs on her property.  

She brought High Court proceedings seeking damages against a number of parties, including Bannon who trades as Dermot Bannon Architects.

She also sued Kelly O'Connell Developments Ltd, of Timahoe, Co Laois, the principal contractor who carried out works on her home that featured in the show; a director of the contracter, Brendan O'Connell and Coco Television Productions Ltd, the company which produces 'Room to Improve.'

The claims were denied.

The case briefly came before Ms Justice Caroline Costello during a vacation sitting of the High Court today who was told by barrister Peter Shanley, who appeared with solicitor Raymond Qiunn for Ms Moore, that the action had been settled.

The house after the 'makeover' 

He said €100,000 had been lodged into court by Mr Bannon, Mr O'Connell and Coco TV in February.

Mr Shanley said that while it was Ms' Moore's case the amount lodged did not cover what was required to carry out the necessary remedial works on her home she had agreed to accept the €100,000 by way of settlement. 

In order to obtain payment out of monies an application had to be made to the court, counsel said.

After considering the application Ms Justice Costello consented to the application for payment out in favour of Ms Moore.

None of the other parties in the case were present in court when the brief application was made.