A DISPUTE between printers Webprint Concepts Ltd and the Crosbie newspaper publishing chain, over a 15-year printing agreement said to be worth about €45 million, has opened before the High Court.

Webprint, Mahon Retail Park, Cork, claims it is owed €6.1 million so far under the printing deal reached with Thomas Crosbie Printers Ltd in 2005.

The Crosbie company has denied breach of contract and has counterclaimed for specific performance or, alternatively, “rectification” of the agreement, and some €1.1 million allegedly due to it.

The case opened yesterday before Mr Justice John MacMenamin and is expected to last some weeks. The judge was told settlement moves had been “exhausted”.

The judge said he would facilitate mediation if the parties decided to opt for it even at this late stage and stressed he could only do so much in such cases. It would be a supreme irony if the sides ended up in a situation satisfactory to nobody.

The dispute arises from a master printing agreement dating back to April 22nd, 2005, between the Crosbie group and Webprint, and the operation of that agreement.

In its claim, Webprint says it is owed €6.1 million, having secured about €3 million from the Crosbie group after it conceded it owed a certain amount.

Among the issues between the sides is whether Webprint is entitled to additional revenues for printing supplements and inserts and for providing trimming services (under which the borders of newspapers are cut to achieve a magazine style finish).

The Crosbie group is seeking an order to compel Webprint to meet all its alleged obligations under the agreements. It claims any failure by Webprint to do so will cause irreparable reputational damage to the newspapers.

It also claims Webprint has breached a contractual obligation to keep newsprint wastage below 7 per cent resulting in alleged additional costs to Examiner Publications.

Paul Gardiner SC, for Webprint, said the Crosbie group was in reality seeking to change the wording of the agreement between the sides by way of “rectification”. The case was about whether the court should “rectify” the agreement, he said.

The Crosbie group was arguing that the agreement did not mean what it said but, if it did have the meanings alleged by Webprint, it should be changed.

The agreement had knock-on financial consequences for the Crosbies and “they don’t like it and want to change it”, Mr Gardiner said.

He added that the newspaper group were printers at the time of the agreement and were familiar with all the concepts in that agreement.