A Company which claims to have invested £100,000 in a film and television production firm and secured a return of only £32,750 on the sale of the investment, leaving a shortfall of £67,250, has taken a High Court action against its alleged investment advisers.

The proceedings have been taken by Westward Garage Ltd, Strokestown, Co Roscommon, against Davy Corporate Finance Ltd and J & E Davy. The defendants deny the claims.

Westward claims that at all material times the defendants or one or other of them held themselves out and acted as investment advisers to the Roscommon company.

It is claimed that it was represented to Westward that, in relation to any recommended investment, the defendants would have first investigated it and satisfied themselves as to its soundness and viability prior to making any investment for Westward.

It is also alleged that it was represented that Westward need make no further investigation.

In March 1988, the defendants, or one of them, made contact with Westward, the company claims. It was represented to it that the defendants had a totally secure investment in which Westward could invest and that the investment would allow Westward claim full tax relief on any investment up to £100,000.

It was also represented that the minimum investment was £100,000, Westward claims.

It is also claimed that it was represented that three years after March 31st, 1988, the company in which the investment was to be made, Vision Film and Television Productions (No 1) Ltd, would be liquidated and that Westward would be repaid a sum at least equal to its investment.

Westward claims it was represented that in order to guarantee the satisfactory liquidation of the Vision firm, another company described as Vision Investments Ltd would purchase that firm's assets on liquidation for as much as was necessary to ensure the return of Westward's investment and that of other investors, with interest.

It is claimed Westward's investment came to be worth less than the value represented and that it had suffered loss and damage.

In their defence, the defendants deny that they held themselves out or acted as investment advisers to the plaintiff and that they made the alleged representations or warranties. If the defendants made the alleged representations or warranties, it is denied that they intended or had reason to know that Westward would rely on them or be induced to take any action.

The defendants plead that if they made the alleged or any representations or warranties, which they deny, they deny they were incorrect or that they were guilty of negligence.

The defendants contend that Westward at no time relied on any advice, representation or warranty allegedly given.

They also contend that Westward relied on its own judgment and on information and representations contained in an information memorandum prepared by Vision Film and Television Productions (No 1) Ltd.

In a letter of March 14th, 1988, it is claimed that J & E Davy had advised Westward that it was acting as broker to the film and television firm and that Westward, in common with other potential investors, was recommended to obtain professional advice in relation to the tax implications and commercial desirability of making the proposed investment.

The hearing, before Mr Justice Geoghegan, is continuing.