The High Court has refused an application to remove an amended challenge to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority’s powers from a long-running dispute over the former Irish Glass Bottle site.
Mr Justice Charleton ruled on 31 July 2012 that the claim could remain in the proceedings. He did not decide whether the authority had power to enter the agreements, whether it had acted unlawfully, or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages. He urged the parties to bring the matter to trial.
Donatex Limited and Bernard McNamara are suing the authority over the purchase of the approximately 25-acre site at the western end of Sandymount Strand. The judgment says the consortium acquired the property in January 2007 for €411 million. McNamara guaranteed Donatex’s share.
The plaintiffs allege that the authority represented it could deliver matters including a LUAS spur line into the site, planning permission under section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997, and a specified housing density. They say they would not have entered the transaction had they known the authority lacked statutory power to make the arrangements. Their amended claim seeks a declaration that the authority lacked the necessary legal capacity, along with damages on several grounds.
The authority argued that the amended pleas amounted to a public law challenge subject to a six-month time limit for judicial review, and that the plaintiffs had brought it too late. The proceedings began in September 2009; the issue was first raised in affidavits in November 2010. The amendment was permitted earlier in the case, in March 2012.
The judge said public law remedies may be included in ordinary proceedings, but remain subject to the procedural limits in Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. He distinguished a challenge based solely on public law from a private law claim that necessarily requires consideration of a public law issue. He found no abuse of process and described the delay, compared with cases where late challenges had been rejected, as small. The court also found no prejudice had been suffered and said there was nothing to be gained by extracting the claim from the litigation.
The ruling was the fourth preliminary decision in the case. The judge said the motion did not call for a decision on the authority’s statutory powers or on the plaintiffs’ allegations of misrepresentation or breach of contract.