West Dublin land dispute for trial

A dispute over 73 acres in west Co Dublin on which it is proposed to build a £300 million national retail distribution centre…

A dispute over 73 acres in west Co Dublin on which it is proposed to build a £300 million national retail distribution centre is to be the subject of a trial in the High Court at the end of next month.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, yesterday fixed January 27th for the hearing of an action between BBF Ltd and four women, Ms Alfreda Mooney, Ms Clodagh Salter, Ms Valerie Dalogetty and Ms Sandra Carr. Mr Colm Allen SC, for the company, told the court the action concerned the validity of a call option agreement which permitted the plaintiffs to purchase 73 acres in the Clondalkin area of Dublin from the four defendants.

He said the defendants, while not repudiating the agreement, had written correspondence which signalled their concern about the deal.

Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for the women, said his clients did have an option agreement to sell land to the plaintiffs at a price of £11,000 an acre.

READ MORE

Gunne estate agents were agents for the vendors but they were also agents for the plaintiffs, and this was not disclosed to his clients at the time, counsel said.

He argued that the company was not entitled to seek performance of the agreement because Mr Harry Dobson, the principal of BBF Ltd, had Gunnes as his agent without the knowledge of the defendants. The land was worth £100,000, or more with planning permission.

Mr Allen said the land in question did not have planning permission and the defendants had impugned his client's entitlement to apply for planning permission for the land.

The defendants were costing BBF Ltd losses of £500,000 a week on top of the £2.5m already invested in the project, he said.

All the late Mr Fintan Gunne did was to find the defendants a purchaser, counsel said. Before that they had been up and down the lanes of Clondalkin trying to find a buyer.

The judge made no order on an application by the plaintiff for an interlocutory order against the defendants, obliging them to comply with the terms of an option agreement made in December 1994 and directing them to accept a deposit proffered on behalf of the plaintiff.