The “infamous” building earmarked as the proposed flagship headquarters for Anglo Irish Bank is a “more fitting tombstone to the supposed Celtic Tiger,” a High Court judge said today when an action over the property came before him.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly made the comment when dealing with pre-trial issues in proceedings by a German company against Anglo, now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, which was contracted to provide a facade for the building and claims it suffered substantial loss as a result of the building not being completed.
Metallbau Fruh GMBH says it became involved with others in 2007 in the development of Anglo’s proposed new corporate headquarters at North Wall Quay in Dublin and was invited to tender for the design, supply and installation of a fully unitised deep cavity double skin facade/glazing system for the development.
It claims it was contracted to carry out the glazing works for a sum of €15.8 million, plus VAT as appropriate, in respect of an eight-storey building with an agreed uplift of €2.57 million, plus VAT, if the building was altered to a ten-storey property.
Anglo held itself out as “a responsible, properly regulated and appropriately capitalised” institution which could be expected to fulfil commitments undertaken by it and to “act responsible and ethically” with regard to its business affairs, the German company claims.
It claims the development of the property was at all times being funded by Anglo whose input, consent and approval was at all times necessary before any major step to undertake the development could be undertaken by North Quay Investments Ltd, as primary developer, and/or Danninger, as main contractor.
A statutory consent for the development was also required from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, it claims.
In those and other circumstances, it claims it duly agreed and contracted with Danninger. However, unknown to it, other proceedings were brought against NQIL and the DDDA which ultimately led to a High Court judgment of October 2008 which rendered the entire development unauthorised and illegal.
The plaintiff claims it had already carried out certain works under its contract when it was issued with a works suspension notice in October 2008. It suspended works in accordance with that notice and placed those parts of the works already manufactured and assembled in storage.
As a result of suspension of the works, the company claims it suffered an immediate loss of productivity and also incurred transportation, demobilisation and storage costs.
Anglo became insolvent in late 2008 and had to be nationalised as a result, primarily or in large part, due to “irresponsible banking practices having been carried out over a long period of time”, it is claimed. As a result, it became apparent the matters relied upon by the plaintiff when entering into the contract with Danninger for the works on the bank’s headquarters were “untrue”.
Anglo was forced to withdraw from the development as a result of its own economic circumstances, it is claimed. While NQIL in late 2010 obtained a new statutory consent for the development, it had lost all commercial viability by then, it also claims.
As NQIL and Danninger were placed in receivership in late 2009, this action was being brought against Anglo as the “sole remaining wrongdoer in a position to compensate the plaintiff”, the company said.
It is claiming damages for alleged negligence; breach of duty; intentional, reckless and/or negligent misrepresentation, infliction of economic harm and conspiracy causing economic harm. It is also seeking, if necessary, a declaration Anglo must compensate it for all works done in relation to the proposed headquarters.
Anglo denies the claims and denies it has any liability to the plaintiff for the works carried out. In the circumstances of the case, no cause of action has been made out against it, the bank contends.
The case has been adjourned to October next for determination of a preliminary issue.
