Danish consultant declines to give evidence

The Danish consultant engaged for the 1995 mobile phone licence competition has said he will not give evidence to the tribunal.

Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Michael Andersen, the former managing director of Andersen Management International (AMI), has sold his interest in the company and has not been able to come to an agreement with the new owners in relation to his giving evidence.

Mr Andersen was the main point of contact for the licence assessment group from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, in its dealings with AMI.

He also said the stance being adopted was a cause of concern and that there was a potential for drawing "negative conclusions" from the development.

The tribunal heard that the new owners of AMI, Ementor, are involved in a joint venture business with Telenor, the former owners of 40 per cent of Esat Digifone.

A letter advising Mr Andersen and the consultancy that adverse inferences could be drawn from a refusal to co-operate was read out.

Mr Coughlan also said that AMI had acted as consultant to the Telecommunications Regulator, Ms Etaine Doyle, on a range of major projects.

The fees paid are covered by confidentiality clauses which AMI has refused to waiver, but evidence may yet be heard from the regulator in relation to the matter, Mr Coughlan said.

He said Mr Andersen had met the tribunal on a number of occasions and provided a number of statements.

The first statement was received in January 2002 and had been delayed by a costs issue between Mr Andersen and the Department, which was resolved with the payment of £20,000 to the consultant.

In May Mr Andersen was asked for a lengthy narrative statement.

On June 20th, 2002, the tribunal was informed that Mr Andersen had sold his interest in AMI to a Norwegian concern, Ementor, It did not want to spend any more money assisting the tribunal.

In October AMI told the tribunal it would continue to help it with its inquiries if Mr Andersen agreed to indemnify it against any costs which accrued to AMI.

Ementor was told by the tribunal it could apply for its costs when the tribunal finished its work.

Mr Andersen told the tribunal that arising from his disposal of AMI he was still owed a "substantial sum of money" and, if he helped the tribunal, deductions would be made from the amount he was owed. The tribunal said the allegation that Mr Andersen has received a threat could be material to its inquiries.

AMI said it had no objection to Mr Andersen giving evidence to the tribunal but that if it was served with any claims as a result, it would pass them on to Mr Andersen.

Mr Andersen's Danish solicitor said Mr Andersen could not give evidence for legal reasons.

The tribunal was told by the solicitor that some people who worked on the 1995 project were still working with AMI, and it was given contact details.

Mr Coughlan said the tribunal intended to continue trying to get evidence from Mr Andersen and AMI.