German firm loses Anglo HQ costs case

A German company contracted to carry out “no expense spared” glazing works for the facade of the proposed flagship Dublin headquarters of Anglo Irish Bank has lost its action for compensation when the project did not proceed.

Mr Justice John Cooke ruled Metallbau Fruh GMBH had failed to make out claims it was entitled to compensation on grounds including negligence and breach of duty by the bank, which collapsed in 2008, was nationalised and renamed Irish Bank Resolution Corporation.

The headquarters is part of a site on Dublin’s north quays. The Central Bank recently signed contracts with Nama and the receiver of developer Liam Carroll’s North Quay Investments Ltd to purchase the site for €7m.

In its action, Metallbau said it became involved with others in 2007 in the development of Anglo’s proposed new corporate headquarters at North Wall Quay and was invited to tender for design, supply and installation of a fully unitised deep cavity double skin facade/glazing system for the development.

It claimed it was contracted to carry out the glazing works for €15.87m, plus Vat as appropriate, in respect of an eight-storey building with an agreed uplift of €2.57m, plus Vat, if the building was altered to a 10-storey property.

It claimed the value of works by it on the project by mid-October 2008 amounted to €8.14m but it had only ever been paid €450,000.

Anglo, it claimed held itself out as “a responsible, properly regulated and appropriately capitalised” institution which could be expected to fulfil commitments undertaken by it and to “act responsibly and ethically” with regard to its business affairs.

It claims the development of the property was at all times being funded by Anglo whose input, consent and approval was at all times necessary before any major step to undertake the development could be undertaken by North Quay Investments Ltd (NQIL), as primary developer, and/or Danninger, as main contractor.

It alleged negligence by Anglo on grounds it failed to warn the firm from late-2007 a legal challenge had been brought to the validity of the planning permission for the project.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Cooke found the company had failed to show the necessary relationship of proximity to enable the court find negligence or breach of duty of care.

He also found statements made to the company at a meeting in Germany in 2009 by some of those involved in the project were not binding on the bank and could not be taken as the bank authorising others to sign off on certain matters.