A High Court action over the procedures involved in determining who wins the contract for the National Conference Centre in Dublin has been settled. In court yesterday Mr Justice Kelly was told the proceedings taken by Spencer Dock International Convention Centre Ltd against Bord Failte and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation had been settled.
The judge struck out the action with no order.
Spencer Dock International, in which Treasury Holdings Ltd was said to be the majority shareholder, had spent £1.5 million on preparing a tender for the project. In judicial review proceedings, it had sought orders against Bord Failte and the Minister.
The company wants to build the 2,000-seat centre at Dublin's north docks and believes it will be successful in getting the tender. Several other groups have also submitted tenders. Bord Failte is evaluating them on behalf of the Minister.
The development is earmarked for EU financial assistance running to 33 million ecus. But a delay could mean the loss of that aid. If the funding is to be secured, the centre must be completed by December 31st, 2001, Spencer claimed.
Last month Spencer was given leave to apply for an order by way of judicial review quashing a decision of the respondents dated April 14th last purporting to invoke a "negotiated procedure" under an EU directive in respect of the centre.
The company was also given leave to seek a declaration that Bord Failte and the Minister breached the requirements of the EU directive in failing to follow procedures specified in the Official Journal of the European Communities last September, and in the invitation to tender document, and that they were not entitled to use the "negotiated procedure" except where authorised.
Leave was further given to seek a declaration that the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements of the directive necessary to justify the negotiated procedure.
An order requiring Bord Failte and the Minister to invoke the prescribed procedure and invite tenderers to make a presentation to the management board was also to be pursued.
At the leave stage Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for Spencer, said the issue was whether his clients were right in saying the decision-makers deviated from the procedures they were bound to follow.
His clients had spent some £1.5 million in preparing their tender and dealing with the necessary arrangements.
They were concerned that the award procedure be concluded as quickly as possible so that the project would not lose EU grants, counsel added.