‘Happy days’ email after DDDA €212m site deal
The email, sent on November 1, 2006, by DDDA member Thomas Mulligan, was part of a chain of emails circulated to the directors of the authority by the personal assistant to former DDDA CEO Paul Maloney, developer Bernard McNamara said.
It stated: “Happy days. Congratulations to Paul and the team. Our pension is now secured,” Mr McNamara said. The DDDA, having overseen much of the development of the docklands, “had of course perpetuated itself by entering this transaction”, Mr McNamara added.
Mr Maloney had emailed the same day the agreement “presents a major opportunity for DDDA to create influence and expand its role in the Poolbeg peninsula”.
These and other documents obtained for court proceedings showed, such was “the determination” with which the DDDA pursued the IGB site, neither it nor its advisers ever fully considered its legal entitlement to enter into the Joint Venture Agreement with Mr McNamara and his company Donatex to purchase a public company, Mr McNamara said.
Mr McNamara has claimed, following a 2008 High Court finding 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 into the November 2006 agreement as that was similar to the overturned North Wall agreement.
Mr McNamara, Ailesbury Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin, and Donatex Ltd, Pembroke Road, Ballsbridge, has sued the DDDA claiming it was unable to perform its obligations under the IGB agreement and therefore frustrated the ability of Mr McNamara and others to develop the site, meaning very substantial losses for them.
At the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr Justice Peter Kelly received a 31 page affidavit from Mr McNamara grounding his application for a preliminary hearing on the issue whether the DDDA had power to enter into the November 2006 agreement.
Mr McNamara claims, if the court decides the DDDA had no such power, that determines the full court proceedings in his favour.
Mr Justice Kelly made directions for the exchanges of documents concerning the motion and adjourned that issue and discovery issues to December 20 when he will fix a date for hearing of the motions.
In his affidavit, Mr McNamara said documents indicated the DDDA Board was not told about reservations as to the DDDA’s capacity to enter into the agreement.
It seemed the power of the authority to enter into such a JVA was questioned by some officials of the departments of the Environment and Finance, and by its solicitors, he said.
The DDDA has denied it or Paul Maloney made “representations” to Mr McNamara which induced him to get involved in a joint bid with the authority for the site. It also pleads any losses suffered by Mr McNamara over the site acquisition are not attributable to its alleged failure to fast track permission for the site as, it claims, such permission always had to be approved by the Minister for the Environment.
