The High Court is hearing a dispute in which a development company “flatly contradicts” claims made by a businesswoman regarding alleged overheating in her luxury penthouse.

Aideen O’Byrne claims that a failure to maintain the district heating system in her Lansdowne Place apartment, once considered Ireland’s most expensive, has led to “unbearable” temperatures reaching 33 degrees Celsius.

She also reports that temperatures in the building’s lobby areas have reached 29 degrees Celsius.

Last week, Ms O’Byrne was granted an interim injunction, preventing the developer from transferring its beneficial interest in the buildings and common areas to an owners’ management company until the issues are resolved.

The legal action names Copper Bridge C 2015 ICAV,the developer,and O’Connor Sutton Cronin and Associates Ltd. as defendants.

The initial injunction application was made ex parte, meaning only Ms O’Byrne’s side was represented at the time.

During a subsequent hearing before Mr Justice Brian Cregan, Hugh O’Keeffe SC, representing Copper Bridge, asserted that his client has a strong defense and expert evidence that “flatly contradict” Ms O’Byrne’s allegations.

“We spent three years trying to address them without any progress”, he said, adding that his client is seeking an expedited trial to resolve the matter quickly.

Mr O’Keeffe also argued that the transfer of interests, which the injunction seeks to prevent, had already occurred in accordance with the multi Unit Development (MUD) Act, following a statutory declaration of completion.

He stated that the legal interest had been previously transferred, and the transfer under MUD is completed upon the statutory declaration.

Gavin Mooney SC, representing Ms O’Byrne, questioned the timing of the statutory declaration on April 3, noting that his client had already raised concerns about the issue.

Mr Mooney stated that he may seek to change his application to set aside the transfer of beneficial interest.

He also indicated his intention to add the Lansdowne Place Owners’ Management Company (OMC) as a defendant in the proceedings.

Mr Mooney explained that after initial efforts against the developer “did not get vrey far,” his side approached the OMC for assistance.

“But it was not forthcoming and the OMC has now targeted us because we seem to have annoyed them,” he said.

Siobhán Gaffney,representing the OMC,stated that her clients would present their position on Mr mooney’s application via affidavit. She argued that the OMC is being “dragged into the proceedings” despite only being responsible for common areas, while the overheating issue is a structural and engineering matter.

Deirdre Ní Fhloinn,representing the co-defendant,expressed support for the developer’s request for an early trial.

Mr justice Cregan ruled that, given the alleged impact of the overheating on common areas and the potential source from pipes and fittings, he was satisfied to include the OMC in the case. He directed Ms O’Byrne to amend her legal papers accordingly.

mr Mooney requested permission to do so after a forensic engineer’s report is completed.

The judge extended the interim injunction, provided directions for the exchange of documents, and adjourned the case until next month.

“We spent three years trying to address them without any progress”