THE Doc Marten's boots company is one of a group of companies seeking to sequestrate the assets of the directors of Dunnes Stores, the High Court has been told.

Mr Rory Brady SC, for Dunnes Stores, yesterday told Mr Justice Smyth there was an application before the court also to sequestrate the assets of the company which operated the 72 Dunnes Stores throughout the State.

He said his clients were also gravely concerned at an allegation by R Griggs Group Ltd, Elizabeth Maertens, Dr Herbert Funck and Dr Marten's International Trading Company that Dunnes Stores had deliberately breached an order of the High" Court restraining it from infringing a trade mark or passing off footwear as Doc Marten's products.

The proceedings, in which the plaintiffs are seeking an interlocutory injunction against Dunnes Stores restraining alleged passing off activities, the sequestration of assets and the committal of Dunnes Stores directors for an alleged contempt of court, were to have gone ahead yesterday.

Mr Michael Howard, counsel for the plaintiffs, told Mr Justice Smyth that when the alleged passing off activities first came to the attention of his clients, Dunnes Stores had undertaken that alleged look-alike Doc Marten's footwear would he taken off the company's shelves and put in storage until the determination of the dispute.

He said that, as a result of a breach of that undertaking, his clients had to apply to the High Court and they obtained an interim injunction restraining Dunnes from displaying in its stores or trading in boots which his clients claimed were being passed off as Doe Marten's footwear.

Mr Howard said his clients claimed that Dunnes Stores had breached that order of the court by continuing to display and trade in the boots in dispute, particularly at its Donaghamede Shopping Centre store in Dublin.

He told Mr Justice Smyth that on September 11th Dunnes Stores had failed to file replying affidavits to his clients' claims and he had not received them until close of business on Monday last which had not allowed him proper time to deal with them and in turn reply to them. He sought an adjournment to allow him to do so.

Mr Brady, opposing an adjournment, said Mr Justice Geoghegan had extended time for the furnishing of affidavits until September 23rd and he had delivered them on time.

He said the interim injunction had been obtained on August 30th last. One of the grounds on which he would be resisting it being made interlocutory would be that of misrepresentation by the plaintiffs and their failure to disclose key facts to the court.

"They did not disclose that the boots sold by my clients have Dunnes Stores labels on them with the St Bernard brand label," Mr Brady said.

He said it had also emerged that one of the plaintiffs had applied in the UK to register the shape and configuration of the Doc Marten's boot and that other manufacturers in the UK had filed statements of opposition challenging that application on the grounds the shape was not unique or distinctive of Doc Marten's boots.

"That was not disclosed to the court and should have been," Mr Brady said. "I say there has been misrepresentation and I will deal with that at the interlocutory stage."

Mr Brady said Dunnes Stores had been injuncted from selling a series of boots and the company would not know how many it would have been able to sell during the duration of the restraint.

The company did not know what its loss of opportunity would have been and the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages in the event of them losing the action was inadequate in that Dunnes would never be compensated for the loss caused to it.

Mr Brady said the contempt of court motion was a matter of the gravest importance to his clients. They were alleged to be in breach of a court order and the plaintiffs sought the appointment of a sequestrator over the assets of Dunnes Stores and over the assets of the directors of the company.

"A matter of this importance should not be adjourned and if it is to be then it should be for the shortest time possible. There should be an oral hearing as soon as possible," Mr Brady said.

Mr Justice Smyth said he would put it in before Mr Justice McCracken tomorrow morning.