Byrne expected to give evidence in planning case
Mr Byrne is a member of a five man partnership which along with another five man partnership acquired a two acre site in Tallaght in the early 1990s and in 2003 became involved in the possibility of redeveloping the site.
The Wood Partnership of which Mr Byrne is a member and the White Partnership have sued Spain Courtney Doyle Commercial Ltd and its directors, David G Courtney and Bernard T Doyle.
The High Court yesterday heard that the assets and affairs of the two partnerships are organised and managed by Quinlan Private Asset Management of Raglan Road, Ballsbridge Dublin.
Spain Courtney Doyle Commercial Ltd (SCD) is a property advice company with offices at Waterloo Road, Dublin.
The case revolves around the two partnerships acquiring two adjoining properties at the junction of Belgard Road and Blessington Road in Tallaght in the early 1990s and an application for planning permission on the two acre site. SCD prepared an application for planning permission for the site for a mixed use development of 223 apartments, a retail unit and two storey creche and this was submitted to South Dublin County Council in December 2004.
The case before Mr Justice Peter Kelly is likely to last several days. It is expected Mr Gay Byrne will give evidence later this week.
In these proceedings the partnerships are seeking a declaration that SCD deliver up all original documentation which accompanied the application for planning permission made by SCD to South Dublin County Council including elevation drawings, plans and other documents in relation to the Tallaght site.
It is also seeking a declaration that the partnerships are entitled to immediate possession of the documents and a declaration that there are no further sums due or owing or on behalf of the partnership to SCD in connection with the site or the development.
The two partnerships which include broadcaster Gay Byrne and nine others from legal medical and commercial areas have also sued for damages.
Spain Courtney Doyle Commercial Ltd has denied there was any agreement that the fees payable by the two partnerships would be only those specified on invoices sent out on February 11, 2005.
It is also denied that there was any agreement that no further fees would be payable unless the partnership proceeded to redevelop the site. SCD has claimed that the fee of a percentage fee for the total construction cost had been agreed.
In a counterclaim SCD has contended that it was retained to provide professional services in relation to the development and would be paid for those services fees equivalent to 8% of the construction costs.
SCD claims it is entitled to the balance of the fees due of over €4 million. In the alternative, SCD claims it is entitled to €2.7m for the professional services provided.
SCD has claimed it owns the copyright in the planning documents and is seeking an order restraining the partnerships from reproducing any part of the plans or drawings in relation to the Tallaght development.
The directors Mr Courtney and Mr Doyle deny all the partnerships’ claims.
Opening the case counsel for the Wood and White partnerships, Paul Gallagher SC said it was an unusual claim. The Wood Partnership he said is entitled to the drawings in relation to an application for planning permission in relation to a site in Tallaght at the junction of Belgard Road and Blessington Road.
Counsel said the extraordinary feature of the case is that SCD now claim €5.6m from the Wood Partnership on top of the monies already paid in relation to obtaining planning permission.
When an invoice for €500,000 was sent out by SCD he said no additional sums were mentioned.
SCD, he said claimed that the partnerships were obliged to pay the full fee of €5m which it claims is 8% of the construction costs on the site even though no construction took place.
Counsel said independent experts on behalf of the partnerships will tell the court that the €500,000 was a fair fee for the work done and will say it is strange that no timesheets were kept by SCD for completed work.
Counsel said the partnerships contend that it paid the amount it was billed and there was no indication that there was more due and therefore that is all they are entitled to.
The court heard that the gross development value of the site was believed to be €93m and the total construction costs on the site were to be over €50m.
The court heard the essential dispute between the parties is now what was agreed at the time of the planning permission and redevelopment plan.
