The most intriguing aspect of the National Aquatic Centre disputes are likely to be heard in the High Court, writes Arthur Beesley, Senior Business Correspondent

The simplest question has never been answered. Why was Waterworld UK, a dormant shelf company with virtually no assets and no trading record, selected to run the National Aquatic Centre?

The €62 million centre was the first phase of a plan for a bigger stadium complex at the site, an initiative sponsored with some gusto by Bertie Ahern. But, far from basking in glory reflected from his pet project, the pool has proved to be a recurring headache for the Taoiseach.

Dogged by political controversy from the outset, the centre at Abbotstown in west Dublin is now the subject of High Court litigation, two arbitration hearings and repeated claims that many thousands of gallons of water are leaking from the pool itself.

With the Opposition smelling blood in the run-up to the long summer holiday season, the centre has been portrayed as yet another example of Government incompetence and cash wasted by the millions at the expense of the taxpayer.

While blame has been spread around liberally, Ahern has taken the brunt of the political attacks.

So what exactly is going on? At the core of the affair is Dublin Waterworld, a company that entered the scene only after Waterworld UK failed to raise financial backing to run the pool at Abbotstown.

This company never sought the business in the first place, a fact that prompted serious criticism in 2002 of the State company, Campus Stadium Ireland Development Ltd (CSID).

Yet, despite the controversy, which ultimately led the Government to stand down former civil servant Paddy Teahon as head of CSID, Dublin Waterworld retained the contract.

In light of Waterworld UK's exit from scene, Dublin Waterworld's majority owner, John Moriarty, was described as a bona fide white knight in a report by the then Attorney General, Michael McDowell.

Moriarty, a low-profile Kerry businessman, might have expected his brush with unwelcome publicity to end then. But just two years into a contract that was supposed to run for 30 years, the knight's company is now embroiled in a public battle to keep the business. The current argument stems from a legal action against Dublin Waterworld which was initiated on March 18th by Campus Stadium Ireland Development Ltd, the State body that owns the Abbotstown centre.

This is separate to the controversy that emerged when the roof of the pool blew off in a storm on New Year's Day, an event that led to its closure for almost five months.

Engineering firm Mansfield & Partners found that the roof did not comply with building regulations. CSID is pursuing this matter with the pool's insurers and construction firm Rohcon, which built the centre.

The roof issue is not embraced in CSID's High Court action against Dublin Waterworld. Rather, the case centres on the firm's failure to pay rents of some €1 million to CSID, its failure to provide audited accounts and its failure to pay insurance.

A question of whether the company has a Vat liability of €10.25 million is the subject of arbitration, as is CSID's claim that Dublin Waterworld has failed to meet its repair and maintenance obligations.

It appears CSID believes Dublin Waterworld is not up to the job of keeping the centre in mint condition. In contrast, Dublin Waterworld says it cannot maintain the centre because of flaws in its construction.

Reports this week said water was leaking from the pool "like a sieve". If true, how could Dublin Waterworld maintain the centre in proper order? But CSID dismissed the reports as "inaccurate in many respects", a line of argument adopted by Ahern.

Still, video footage of the centre shows puddles and leaks from walls alongside the pools. It also emerged that a report by engineer Malachy Walsh had identified 126 cracks, including some that have been repaired but continue to leak. Such findings might support claims by Dublin Waterworld that it could not properly maintain the centre.

There was no public comment by Rohcon before last night, when the company said it was refused access yesterday afternoon to the centre to examine the site in light the reports of leaking. All known defects were remedied, it said.

"Rohcon also considers it significant that these media reports arrive at a time when CSID is engaged in legal proceedings against Dublin Waterworld for amongst other issues, poor maintenance of the building," it said.

In a letter last week to CSID's project manager, Davis Langton PKS, the company said it was "not aware" of any bursting or overflowing of water tanks.

"Every concrete pool tank was tested to British Standard in its raw state before the floors and walls were subsequently tiled. The pool tanks were 100 per cent watertight before tiling commenced and remain so to this day," it said. Such arguments will be assessed by the arbitrator, Dermot O'Brien.

Still, the most intriguing aspect of the case is likely to be heard before the High Court. Mr Justice Peter Kelly said last month that it was "difficult to see" how Dublin Waterworld could have paid €4.5 million for unspecified services to one of its subsidiaries at a time when it was in rent arrears of some €1 million.

The centre at Abbotstown was the subject of controversy before any swimmer ever jumped into the water. The controversy continues.