A DUBLIN journalist claimed in the High Court yesterday he had not been paid a £75,000 fee for a film script on the life of the late boxer, Jack Doyle.
Mr Michael Sheridan, of Belgrave Road, Rathmines, Dublin, has brought an action against Film Eireann Ltd with registered offices at Leeson Street, Dublin.
He claimed the film company broke its contract and failed, or neglected to, raise funds for the completion of the film whereby funds would be drawn down and he would be paid.
Mr Justice Costello rejected an appeal brought by the film company against an order made by the Master of the High Court in June that it produce documents to Mr Sheridan's lawyers.
Mr Sheridan, in his claim, alleged Mr Scott Millaney, a director of the film company, indicated to him the company raised about £11 million from investors with a view to producing three films, one of which was to be about the life of the late Jack Doyle.
In his statement of claim, Mr Sheridan alleged the film company got approval for taxpayers to invest up to 60 per cent of the total film costs. These had been invested under the direction of a firm of government stockbrokers.
He claimed the company had failed to raise funds within a time limit of October 5th, 1995, or within a reasonable time. Mr Sheridan claims to have been paid £11,000, leaving £64,000 outstanding.
The film company, in its defence, claimed the funds have been raised, invested and are held in trust for it. The funds had not been drawn down and it did not owe Mr Sheridan £64,000. It denied negligence or breach of contract.
Mr Paul Coughlan, counsel for Mr Sheridan, said his client claimed that because the monies agreed were not forthcoming there had been a breach of contract. In those circumstances his client believed he was entitled to rescind the contract and was not bound by any copyright assignment to the film company.
Mr Niall Fitzgibbon, counsel for the film company, said Mr Millaney was prepared to provide information and to identify what funds were in place on October 5th 1995, but the "hows and whys" and the sensitive negotiations between the film company and investors were not relevant.
Mr Justice Costello rejected the appeal against the Master's order which required the film company to produce documents relating to the production, financing and writing of the film script.