A number of MMDS operators are involved in talks with the Director of Telecommunications Regulation about exchanging their existing licences - which they claim are exclusive - for new non-exclusive licences, the High Court was told yesterday.

However, Mr John Gleeson, for the operators - who are suing the State and Director over alleged failure to take action against unlicensed deflector operators - stressed that, while talks are continuing, no agreement has been reached.

As there is no concluded agreement, it would be foolhardy to pre-empt the results of any negotiations, he said.

Mr Gleeson said the negotiations had nothing to do with his application yesterday to the court to order the Director to particularise her claim that the orders sought by the MMDS operators are inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the EEC. This claim forms part of the Director's defence and counter-claim to the proceedings initiated by Princes Holdings Limited and other MMDS operators against the Director, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland, and the Attorney General.

In the action, the operators are seeking a declaration that the MMDS licences granted to them are exclusive and do not permit the Minister and/or the Director to licence any other form of TV programme transmission or retransmission in the areas licensed to the plaintiff operators.

They are also seeking damages for breach of contract, of constitutional rights and legitimate expectation; misrepresentation and negligent mis-statement. The defendants deny the claims. The Director is counter-claiming for declarations that none of the licences held by the plaintiffs are exclusive and that, if they were purported to be granted on an exclusive basis, they can no longer be regarded as having exclusive effect, given the High Court's decision - in an action taken by South Coast Community Television - that the Minister for Public Enterprise was not entitled to grant exclusive licences of the type contended for by the plaintiffs.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he would order the Director to particularise within four weeks those parts of the original EEC Treaty on which she was relying in the case.

The judge said he had been told there were negotiations between the plaintiff companies and the Director which were at a stage where the companies were considering a non-exclusive licence from the DTR. But there was no agreement to that effect yet, he said.

The judge also rejected submissions advanced on behalf of the Director to the effect that domestic law could determine the issues between the parties, thereby making the European law argument unnecessary. All the issues were still open in the case at this stage, he said.

Mr Justice Kelly said the EEC Treaty was an enormous document and that failing to point to the particular sections relied on by the Director would not make the forthcoming trial any easier. In all the circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to the particulars sought.