Developer Tom McFeely has won his appeal against a three-month jail sentence for failing to rectify fire safety defects at Priory Hall.

Mr McFeely received the sentence at the High Court last November when it held that he had breached an order to carry out the works.

In her judgment, Chief Justice Ms Susan Denham said Mr McFeely had been ordered off the site and could not be held to be in breach of the order.

The decision was unanimous from the five-judge court.

Meanwhile, its been confirmed that a warrant issued for the arrest of Mr McFeely over an unpaid debt has been lifted.

The warrant was issued by the Dublin District Civil Court after he failed to show up in court or comply with an order to pay MCR Personnel Ltd a debt of €24,288.

However, Mr McFeely attended the court this morning and the warrant was lifted. He was freed on his own bail of €500 to appear again in September.

McFeely given more time to vacate home

The High Court has extended the time for Mr McFeely and his wife Nina to vacate their home in Ballsbridge following a default on the mortgaget.

NAMA was due to take possession tomorrow but Mr Justice Michael Peart extended the deadline to 10 August  on humanitarian ground.

The judge rejected a bid by the McFeely's to seek a longer postponement of a possession order given to NAMA arising out of a €9.5m mortgage they took out on the Ailesbury Road house in 2005.

It came just hours after her husband won a Supreme Court appeal over his jailing for contempt over Priory Hall, a lifting of an arrest warrant over an unpaid debt and a declaration of bankruptcy yesterday.

Justice Peart said yesterday he would not give the McFeely's a stay on possession of their home pending a High Court appeal which could take several months to determine.

Instead, he gave them until 10 August to find alternative accommodation and to allow the sheriff formally notify them that "the vans would be ready" by that date, a reference to the fact that all their furniture would have to be removed to effect possession.

He rejected the McFeely's claim that they had bona fide grounds for an appeal, saying the matter had already been extensively fought in both the Circuit and High Courts.