Byrne sees partnerships’ land row court case dismissed

A CASE brought by a partnership which included broadcaster Gay Byrne about planning permission on a Dublin site has been dismissed in the High Court.

Mr Byrne is a member of a five-man partnership which, together 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, had sued Spain Courtney Doyle Commercial Ltd (SCD) and its directors, David G Courtney and Bernard T Doyle.

Counsel yesterday asked Mr Justice Peter Kelly to dismiss the partnerships’ claim against Spain Courtney Doyle Commerical Ltd and its two directors. The partnerships have agreed to pay the defendants’ costs.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told that a counter-claim relating to €4 million in fees allegedly due could be struck out.

The case revolved around the two partnerships acquiring adjoining properties in Tallaght in the early 1990s.

It was claimed it was agreed SCD would be engaged to conduct a financial appraisal of the potential redevelopment on a “no foal, no fee basis”.

The development value was believed to €93m and the total construction costs were expected to be over €50m, the court heard.

SCD prepared an application for planning permission for a mixed use development and submitted to South Dublin County Council in December 2004.

Planning permission was granted but the partnerships decided not to proceed to redevelop the site. They put it up for sale and sought the planning permission documents from SCD who, it is claimed, refused to give the documents and claimed that fees were owing including 8% of the estimated €60m construction costs.

The partnerships sought declarations that SCD deliver up all original documentation and that there are no further sums due or owing or on behalf of the partnership to SCD.

SCD denied the claims. It also denies there was an agreement that no further fees would be payable unless the partnership proceeded to redevelop the site.

In a counterclaim, it claimed a fee involving a percentage of the total construction cost had been agreed.