A bitter legal battle over a multi-million euro property development in central Dublin took on a new dimension yesterday with claims by a developer that Dublin City Council had "ambushed" him.
He said the city council had used its compulsory purchase powers illegally in entering an agreement with a private developer regarding the site.
Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for Mr Paul Clinton, said it was difficult to underestimate "the degree of ambush" against his client arising from the reaching of the agreement in question.
Mr Clinton claims the council entered an agreement sometime this year with property developer Mr Joseph O'Reilly regarding the site, which extends from the former Carlton cinema in O'Connell Street back onto Moore Street.
He claims that agreement provides for the compulsory acquisition of his lands on the site and their transfer to Mr O'Reilly. This was in breach of the council's own statement that there would be an open and transparent process under which the council would select a developer for the site. It is understood the alleged agreement with Mr O'Reilly includes a statement that it was recognised it would be of benefit to the developer if Moore Lane was closed to the public and the casual trading area and traders in Moore Street were "relocated".
Mr Justice O'Neill yesterday gave leave to Mr Donal O'Donnell to take a further set of judicial review proceedings against Dublin City Council. In those proceedings, Mr Clinton will seek a number of orders and damages arising from the alleged agreement between the council and Mr O'Reilly.
Later yesterday, at a separate hearing, in an apparent reference to the alleged agreement in favour of Mr O'Reilly, Mr John Trainor SC, for the council, said his side had given a document to Mr O'Donnell, which document would not be operational unless and until the CPO regarding the Carlton site was confirmed.
Mr Trainor said the council had always taken the position that the Carlton group of landowners could develop the site if it was in a position to, in which circumstances the council would not seek to enforce the CPO. However, the planning permission secured by Mr Clinton and others in 1999 had not been implemented and that had led to the CPO being made.
It appeared in recent times that the owners of the lands in question had agreed to dispose of the lands to a very significant developer who had given assurance to commence development within a reasonable time.
In other proceedings also initiated yesterday, Mr Clinton has brought litigation under Section 150 of the Companies Act against companies owned or part owned by Mr Richard Quirke, who owns or part owns a number of properties on the Carlton site.
Mr Clinton has alleged he was in partnership with Mr Quirke but Mr Quirke, in other proceedings, is denying that claim and is challenging claims by Mr Clinton to title regarding a number of properties.
Yesterday's new proceedings by Mr Clinton are the latest in a series of complex litigation relating to the Carlton site.
In separate proceedings, which opened earlier this month and resume today, Mr Clinton is challenging the making by the council in December 2001 of a CPO over the site which was confirmed by An Bord Pleanála in May 2003.
Mr Quirke had also brought proceedings challenging the CPO but last Friday Mr Denis McDonald SC, for Mr Quirke, applied for leave to withdraw that challenge. Counsel said Mr Quirke was seeking to withdraw the challenge brought by him and some companies to the CPO after receiving "some comfort" from the council in relation to the development of lands, which Mr Quirke wished to sell to a developer.
After Mr McDonald applied to withdraw his client's proceedings, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, adjourned both the Quirke and Clinton CPO proceedings to yesterday to allow Mr O'Donnell time to consider the position and seek information about what had taken place between Mr Quirke, the council and other parties.
There were lands on the CPO site held by Mr Clinton alone, others owned jointly by Mr Clinton and Mr Quirke and others held by companies in which Mr Clinton held interests, Mr O'Donnell noted.
About 12.30 p.m. yesterday, Mr O'Donnell secured leave from Mr Justice O'Neill to take a further set of judicial review proceedings arising from what counsel described as the "dramatic events" surrounding Mr Quirke's attempt to withdraw his proceedings and the revelation that Mr Quirke had entered into an agreement with the council and Mr O'Reilly, although the nature of that agreement was not then apparent.
Mr O'Donnell said that, under the agreement, the council had committed itself to aid Mr O'Reilly in the acquisition and development of the site and to operate the CPO for the benefit of Mr O'Reilly. This was in breach of Mr Clinton's rights to property and to be treated equally before the law.
When Mr O'Donnell told Mr Justice Finnegan later yesterday he had initiated new judicial review proceedings, the judge heard submissions on whether Mr Clinton's challenge to the CPO might proceed in those circumstances. He decided it could proceed today.
