Shelbourne management loses bid for stay on access to books
However, the Supreme Court yesterday made a recommendation that an appeal in the case should be heard as soon as possible given the urgency of the matter. Following its decision the court was told that the documentation being sought would be handed over by early next week.
The owners of the hotel, Shelbourne Hotel Holding Company Ltd, (SHHL) had sought access to the books and records after claiming the 262-room hotel, bought and refurbished by SHHL at a cost of €1 million per room, was being run in a “shambolic style” with nobody in charge.
The operators, Torriam Hotel Operating Company Ltd, part of the Marriott international hotel group, denied those claims and said that it had complied with its obligations under a 20-year hotel management agreement.
It also said the public airing of the owner’s claims was causing “huge damage” to the hotel and sought a stay on SHHL’s proceedings to terminate the management agreement to allow the matter go to arbitration.
In December Mr Justice Peter Kelly ruled that SHHL is entitled to access the hotel’s books and records which are held by the Marriott company.
The material in question includes minutes of management meetings, the hotel’s internal control system manual and details of internal audits and reports.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Kelly said that any information from the material be used solely for the purpose of the litigation, arbitration and SHHL’s dealings with the hotel’s creditors including the Revenue Commissioners.
Yesterday, Torriam argued before the Supreme Court for a stay on the order to hand over the hotel documents.
Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said that the documents must be subject to any restrictions that were put in by Mr Justice Kelly, and that the court was making a recommendation that the appeal be heard as soon as possible. The appeal was listed for mention before the Chief Justice next week.
Lyndon McCann, SC for Torriam said that a refusal to grant a stay would effectively end his client’s appeal, and set the arbitration process at nought.
He added that his side had concerns over data protection and confidentiality issues in relation to information on the hotel’s employees, customers and other companies within the Marriott group.
Opposing the stay Cian Ferriter BL for SHHL disputed that any refusal to grant a stay would effectively end the appeal.
He said Mr Justice Kelly had said the hand over of the documents was subject to conditions which limited the scope for the use of the material, and who would have access to it.
He added that the handing over of the information was part of a wider dispute between the parties over the operation of the hotel.
