THE HIGH Court has begun hearing a dispute between Ivor Fitzpatrick and property developer Pat Doherty over whether there existed a property partnership in connection with British property projects worth an estimated stg £150 million (€194 million).
Mr Fitzpatrick, and two fellow partners, are taking the action over the alleged denial or equivocation regarding the existence of the partnership and the breakdown in trust between the parties.
They are seeking declarations that shares in certain companies, together with various development opportunities, are held for the purposes of the partnership.
They are also seeking for a receiver to be appointed over certain assets and want orders winding up the affairs of the alleged partnership.
Mr Fitzpatrick, of Stephen’s Green, Dublin, and his partners, Peter Crean, Maynooth Road, Rathcoffey, Co Kildare and Andrew Kenny, of Muirhevna, Dublin Road, Dundalk, Co Louth have brought the proceedings against Mr Doherty and his company, Harcourt Developments Ltd. The case concerns an alleged partnership and/or joint venture between the three men and Mr Doherty’s Harcourt company in relation to a number of developments in Jersey and London.
It is claimed the affairs of the partnership relate to the development of three major waterfront developments in Jersey in the Channel Islands, worth an estimated £80 million. They further relate to the investment in and development of Chelsea Harbour Hotel.
It is claimed the alleged actions of Harcourt Developments and Mr Doherty in excluding the plaintiffs from the affairs of the partnership have the potential of causing great damage to it.
Opening the case, Michael Cush SC, for the three plaintiffs, said Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Doherty had been doing business together for a number of years.
At a restaurant in London in January 2004 Mr Doherty introduced Mr Fitzpatrick to an auctioneer who was the main shareholder in a company which was the preferrred bidder for a proposed development at St Helier, Jersey, which was being promoted by a government-backed agency, counsel said.
The auctioneer’s company needed a major international developer to get the project going. It was agreed Harcourt would front the project. While Harcourt fronted the project, the three plaintiffs were to finance it and also develop it, counsel said. This was disputed by Mr Doherty.
The three plaintiffs claim they put the time and money into the Jersey project, Mr Cush said, including ensuring the preferred bidder company’s status remained in place and the buying of shares in the company by Mr Fitzpatrick and his co-plaintiffs.