A CO Cork chartered surveyor claims he owns 10 per cent of a company mentioned in the 1991 investigation about the £9.4 million purchase by Telecom Eireann of the former Johnston Mooney and O'Brien site at Ballsbridge, Dublin, the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr Gerard Walsh, of Merlyn Lawn, Bishopstown, has brought an action against Mr Dermot Desmond, stockbroker and chief executive of the NCB group of companies, and Pepper Canister Nominees Ltd with registered offices at Mount Street Cresent, Dublin.
Yesterday's hearing related to the discovery of documents in the proceedings.
Mr Walsh in a statement of claim said he became involved with Mr Desmond in property investment in the Dublin market in 1988. United Property Holding Ltd (UPH) was set up and he claims in consideration of having assisted in its promotion, management and finding investors, Mr Desmond agreed to acquire 10 per cent of the company and hold it in trust for Mr Walsh.
Mr John MacMenamin SC, for Mr Walsh, said the dispute centred on what deal was made between Mr Walsh and Mr Desmond and what were its consequences.
In the statement of claim, Mr Walsh said Mr Desmond issued a public statement through NCB in September 1991 denying Mr Walsh's ownership of the shares.
Mr Walsh claims that in 1991, Dublin solicitor, Mr John Glackin, was appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to investigate and report on the membership of Chestvale Properties Ltd and Hoddle Investments Ltd.
In his final report of July 1993, Mr Glackin, it is claimed, concluded as a matter of fact that UPH was a party financially interested in the success or failure of Chestvale.
Mr Glackin, it is alleged, also found as a fact that shares registered in the name of Pepper Cannister Nominees Ltd as nominee for Mr Desmond were held in trust for Mr Walsh.
The Cork surveyor wants a declaration that the shares in UPH registered in Pepper Cannister's name are held on trust for him.
Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for Mr Desmond and Pepper Cannister Nominees, said Mr Walsh's claims were "hotly contested" by his clients.
In their defence, Mr Desmond and Pepper Cannister Nominees claim Mr Walsh in 1988 represented himself as chief executive of a successful and substantial English property company which would become involved in UPH.
It is alleged that in February 1989, it became known to NCB that Mr Walsh had material misrepresented both himself and the English company to NCB and that NCB decided to proceed with the establishment of UPH alone.
The defendants deny that Mr Walsh had an entitlement of 10 per cent of the UPH share capital. They counterclaim for a declaration that Mr Walsh holds no interest in UPH.
Mr Walsh claimed he did not represent the English company as substantial but that it was in a "start up" situation.
