Campus Stadium Ireland Development Ltd, the State company seeking forfeiture of the lease for the €62 million National Aquatic Centre from Dublin Waterworld Ltd, has asked the High Court to dismiss the firm's counterclaim on the grounds that the counterclaim cannot succeed.
CSID claims DWL cannot prove that the firm sustained any losses as a result of CSID's actions regarding the NAC on grounds that it was another company, Dublin Waterworld Management Ltd, and not DWL, which was actually operating the NAC in alleged breach of the terms of the lease.
CSID has alleged that DWL, unknown to CSID and in breach of the lease, assigned beneficial ownership of the lease to Limerick businessman Pat Mulcair who entered into a management agreement with DWML - a wholly-owned subsidiary of DWL - whereby DWML would manage the centre on Mr Mulcair's behalf.
The matter was before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday via an application by CSID to strike out DWL's counterclaim on grounds it cannot succeed.
The judge said he would adjudicate in two weeks' time on an application by DWL to be allowed amend its counterclaim so that the counterclaim could proceed on the basis of DWL acting in the capacity of trustee for Mr Mulcair.
While he would permit DWL, despite unconvincing explanations and delays on its part, to put forward arguments as to why it should be allowed amend the counterclaim, he would do so only on the basis that DWL pay the costs of yesterday's hearing in addition to the hearing of the application to amend, the judge added.
The judge said that counsel for DWL had accepted yesterday that DWL's counterclaim as it stood was doomed to failure because the company could not demonstrate any of the losses which it alleged to have suffered. The accounts showed a lack of activity for the periods in question.
However, DWL was contending it wished to bring the counterclaim not on its own behalf, but on behalf of Mr Mulcair and attention had been drawn to the arrangement between Mr Mulcair and DWML in relation to the NAC.
Under that arrangement, it was contended that Mr Mulcair was the beneficiary of the leasehold interest.