Docklands body denies making ‘representations’ to McNamara

THE Dublin Docklands Development Authority has denied it or its former chief executive Paul Maloney made “representations” to developer Bernard McNamara which induced him to get involved in a joint bid with the authority for the Irish Glass Bottle site at Ringsend and caused him massive losses.

While Mr Maloney had written to Mr McNamara in October, 2006, concerning the site, the DDDA has denied he “represented” the DDDA could fast-track permission for its development or could procure a Luas route to the site, Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told yesterday.

The DDDA also pleads any losses suffered by Mr McNamara and Donatex over the site acquisition are not attributable to its alleged failure to fast track permission for the site as, it claims, such permission had to be approved by the Environment Minister.

In Commercial Court proceedings against the docklands authority, Mr McNamara has claimed these and other alleged “representations” by Mr Maloney persuaded him to get involved in bidding for the site and ultimately exposed him to claims of more than €108 million.

He claims, following a High Court finding in 2008 that the DDDA acted outside its powers in how it fast-tracked permission for another docklands development at North Wall Quay, the DDDA was never entitled to enter in November, 2006, into an agreement involving himself and developer Derek Quinlan related to development of the site.

The DDDA was unable to perform its obligations under that IGB agreement and had therefore frustrated the ability of Mr McNamara and others to develop the site, meaning very substantial losses for them, it is alleged.

Mr McNamara said he faced potential claims of more than €108m on foot of loans raised from Anglo Irish Bank and private investors with Davy Property Holdings Ltd and also over personal guarantees given by him.

The proceedings by Mr McNamara, of Ailesbury Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin, and his company Donatex Ltd, Pembroke Road, Ballsbridge, against the DDDA were before Mr Justice Kelly to deal with discovery issues.

The sides agreed most matters but disagreed about the time length for discovery of documents related to alleged “representations” by the DDDA to the plaintiffs that allegedly led to the agreement of November, 2006.

The authority was prepared to discover documents from September, 2006, to January, 2007, when the formal contract was signed, but Mr McNamara’s side argued such discovery should extend up to the time their proceedings issued.

Mr Justice Kelly ruled discovery up to January, 2007, relating to the alleged representations was adequate and the additional discovery sought was not necessary.