DEVELOPER SEÁN Dunne is pursuing an application for a High Court injunction requiring rival developer Liam Carroll to pull down an €83 million office block development on Dublin's north quays that the courts have ruled is an unauthorised development.
Mr Dunne and his North Wall Property Holding Company are seeking the injunction following a court ruling earlier this month that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority acted outside its powers in certifying in July 2007 that the office block development by Mr Carroll's company, North Quay Investments Ltd (NQI), did not require planning permission.
The docklands authority, which may be faced with multimillion euro compensation claims from North Quay Investments, has yet to indicate if it is appealing the court's ruling.
The development at issue is intended as a new headquarters for Anglo Irish Bank and is part of a larger €200 million development by North Quay on the former Brooks Thomas site.
The injunction application will be resisted by North Quay Investments in proceedings yet to be heard, Michael Collins SC, for NQI, said yesterday when the case was mentioned before Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan.
Garrett Simons SC, for Mr Dunne, said his side was arguing the North Quay development was an unauthorised structure and should be removed. His side would also argue there was no provision under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act for retention certificates to be provided.
Mr Collins said the court should not make final orders on the successful proceedings by Mr Dunne against the docklands authority until it determined North Quay's claim that the certificate of exemption granted by the authority for the North Quay Investments' development should be treated as "voidable" rather than "void". If the certificate were treated as voidable, the building constructed to date would have the benefit of being considered exempt development, counsel argued.
He contended the certificate of exempt development was valid on its face when it was granted and should not be retrospectively quashed.
Mr Simons said the North Quay development was a commercial development that the court had found did not conform with the docklands planning scheme and his side would argue the problem could not be retrospectively cured.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan remarked there must be the possibility of seeking retention permission for the development.
Mr Collins said his side would do that if nothing else could be done.
The judge said she would adjourn the proceedings, including the issue of costs to date, to November 6th for mention only.
