A businesswoman who bought a penthouse apartment in Ballsbridge, Dublin, for more than €6 million – marketed as “thought to be the most expensive in Ireland” – has claimed in the High Court she has had to endure “unbearable” temperatures of up to 33 degrees due to an alleged failure to maintain or repair the district heating system.

Aideen O’Byrne is seeking injunctions preventing the developer of the property from transferring its beneficial interest in the Lansdowne Place apartment buildings and common areas to an owners management company until problems are resolved.

She has brought the proceedings against the developer, Copper Bridge C 2015 ICAV, and O’Connor Sutton Cronin and Associates Ltd.

On Thursday, Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted her an interim order until next week preventing Copper Bridge transferring its interest pending determination of the proceedings. The application was made by Fiona Forde BL, on a one side only represented basis.

In an affidavit, Ms O’Byrne said that in 2017 she agreed to pay some €6.5 million off the plans for the penthouse with a construction period of two years. The price was ultimately reduced by €335,000 and she moved in 2021 and lives there with her husband.

She said the developer maintained the apartments were of the highest standard and her property was publicised by agents as “thought to be the most expensive apartment sold in Ireland” at the time.

However, she said she did not receive full value for the price paid due to issues including the internal temperature frequently making occupation uncomfortable and “occasionally unbearable”.

An expert report found that during last year’s summer of moderate/below average temperatures there was a threshold internal temperature of the apartment of 33.4 degrees centigrade which is well above acceptable temperatures including those recommended by the World Health Organisation.

She said the owners management company was aware of the problem and a report was provided in 2021 showing lobby areas were consistently showing temperatures of 29 degrees.

The report recommended door-hold open devices, the opening of high level stair ventilators and the operating temperatures of the district heating system were also reduced.

Ms O’Byrne said the opening of the automatic vents on her roof garden was both a security risk, visual eyesore and noise nuisance. Certain other recommendations were made to deal with the problem including a shut down of the district heating system between midnight and 5am and insulation improvements to the pipework.

The management company said last February, through its solicitor, that a report had been sent to the developer with certain recommendations in relation to heating in the lobby areas and was “in hand”. She has not been furnished with it, despite repeated requests, she said.

She had brought proceedings in 2022 against the defendants alleging breach of contract, negligence and breach of duty including by failing to repair/maintain the heating system and common areas. She now seeks that the management company be also joined as a defendant.

She said last April a note was circulated to all residents by the management company rejecting any liability for alleged defects.

It said it had been notified of the proposal to join it as a co-defendant but said “if the member persists, the owners management company will incur significant costs for the High Court representation including senior and junior counsel, engineers and architects etc”.

Ms O’Byrne said this appeared to “comprise an effort to intimidate and isolate me from my fellow residents” and put pressure on her to abandon her requests for an indemnity from the developer in relation to issues with the apartment.

In April the developer confirmed the transfer of the legal interest in the common areas to the management company and therefore the only interest remaining was the beneficial interest, she said.

There was now an urgency to prevent the transfer of that remaining interest as the developer had not given an undertaking not to do so, she said. She said the developer is a special purpose investment vehicle (ICAV) which meant the owners would not have any recourse under company law against it.

She has no assurance the developer will exist or have the means to meet her claim once the transfer of the common areas is completed, she said. She also seeks that an indemnity be sought from the developer which she said the management company had said it will not seek.