THE COMMERCIAL Court has adjourned an application for orders compelling Varleigh Ltd, a company of developer Bernard McNamara, to provide security for the costs of its legal action over a development site in Tallaght.

Varleigh and public relations consultant James Morrissey, a co-director of Varleigh, have brought proceedings alleging they were wrongfully induced by IAWS, now Aryzta, and Ronan McNamee, founder of Cuisine de France, into entering a contract to purchase the Uniphar Pharma site at Tallaght for some €52 million.

They are claiming some €48 million damages over alleged misrepresentation and “broken commitments” concerning an alleged agreement for the development of lands at Tallaght.

On the basis of the alleged misrepresentations, Mr Morrissey claims he guaranteed Varleigh’s liabilities. The plaintiffs say the site is now valued at €33.6 million and claim they would not have entered into the contract were it not for the representations by the defendants.

They also claim the site would be worth substantially more – up to €117 million – had the defendants honoured an alleged agreement relating to joint planning submissions to South Dublin County Council for redevelopment of the Uniphar site along with two adjoining sites.

IAWS and Mr McNamee have denied the claims and have brought motions to require Varleigh provide security for the legal costs of the proceedings, arguing they are concerned about its financial status. They are also seeking to have Mr Morrissey’s entire claim struck out on grounds it indicates no cause of action.

The matter came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday via an application by the plaintiffs to adjourn the hearing of those motions, fixed for Tuesday next, June 23rd, on grounds including late service of documents.

Counsel for both defendants argued the plaintiffs had failed to give adequate replies to notices seeking particulars of their claims and opposed any adjournment.

Ruling on the matter, Mr Justice Kelly said he had on April 27th last fixed the motions hearing for June 23rd and had assumed the experienced counsel on both sides would have ensured the necessary steps were taken to ensure the exchange of documents.

That had not occurred and the net effect was the motion for security for costs was only served in recent days. In those circumstances, the judge said he could not allow the hearing to proceed next week. He would fix a new hearing date for July 8th.