A Sligo architect has been directed to pay €1,107 to a previous client after he did not reply to any of his emails for months over a project.

Diarmaid Hughes of Tully, Cloghervagh brought a small claims action before Sligo District Court against Michael Burrows Design Studio based in Rockfield Manor, Coolaney. Both the applicant and respondent represented themselves.

Mr Hughes told Judge Éiteáin Cunningham that he first sent an email to Michael Burrows on October 18, 2025, and that they had a meeting on site on November 24.

Mr Hughes said that Mr Burrows told him that he would have a site survey of the house completed in January.

He added that he had a phone conversation in December in which he made some changes to the original plan but that they had no discussion over the deadline being changed.

On January 15, Mr Hughes said that he rang Mr Burrows but that he received no answer. He again rang on January 26, but got the same response. On January 30, he emailed Mr Burrows but received nothing back.

Mr Hughes said that he then rang Mr Burrows on his office phone and got through to him. He added that Mr Burrows told him that he would send him over the plans the following week.

On February 13, Mr Burrows said that he did not receive anything. On February 15, he emailed Mr Hughes giving him a deadline of February 22 to refund him or send the detailed plan.

After that deadline passed, Mr Hughes sent the architect another email asking him to refund him or that he would pursue legal action. He got no response.

Mr Hughes said that he then hired another architect for the project.

He then put in a small claims application on April 7. After hearing that the letter did not get served on Mr Burrows, Mr Hughes went to his address and handed him it on April 16. He added that he had a conversation with the architect and told him that he had two options, either refund him or go to small claims court.

Mr Hughes told the court that he paid Mr Burrows €1,476 for his services and that Mr Burrows returned his deposit of €369 following their conversation. He added that the architect failed to engage with him multiple times and that he had a copy of emails sent to him.

Mr Burrows had no questions for the claimant. He then took to the witness box.

Mr Burrows told Judge Cunningham that after the initial phone call, he visited Mr Hughes house on November 24 and did a physical survey of the site. He said that the January deadline was not agreed at that stage.

He added that in December, Mr Hughes made large structural changes to his original plan for the house. Mr Burrows continued that he took time off in January for personal reasons.

The architect said that on April 16, he returned from his son’s football training and that Mr Hughes was waiting in his driveway. He added that Mr Hughes then walked up his driveway and started shouting at him.

Mr Burrows said that his son was in earshot and was visibly shaken by it. He added that because of the incident, he decided to send Mr Hughes the drawings and returned his deposit. He added that he believed he acted in good faith.

Mr Hughes then cross-examined Mr Burrow.

When asked about the phone call, Mr Burrows said that he remembered explaining to Mr Hughes that he required a written brief due to the big structural changes he made to the original plan.

He added that he did do a ground evaluation of the site when he visited but that he could not go to the second stage of the project because of the changes made to the plan by Mr Hughes.

Mr Hughes then got into the witness box again. He denied waiting at Mr Burrow’s driveway for him but said that he did raise his voice when talking to Mr Burrows on April 16.

When asked to make their closing submissions, Mr Hughes said that he had given Mr Burrows plenty of time and lots of opportunities to deliver the second stage of the plan but that he failed to engage.

Mr Burrows said that Mr Hughes completely changed his plan and that he could not proceed to stage two of the project without a written brief.

After considering the matter over lunch, Judge Cunningham found in favour of Mr Hughes. She noted that the emails sent by him to Mr Burrows between February 15 and February 22 had not been responded to with no explanation given by Mr Burrows.

Article funded by the Courts Reporting Scheme.