Company pursues Crosbie for €3m theatre costs

A COMPANY has claimed before the Commercial Court it is owed some €3 million by businessman Harry Crosbie arising from the development of the Grand Canal Theatre in Dublin’s docklands.

Ramford Ltd, a company controlled by developer Joseph O’Reilly, has brought proceedings arising from an agreement of June 29th, 2007, between his company and O2 co-owner Mr Crosbie, to develop the 2,000 seat theatre.

Mr Crosbie owns the lease of the theatre at Grand Canal Square, designed by architect Daniel Libeskind.

The proceedings opened yesterday before Ms Justice Mary Irvine and are listed to run for three days.

In outlining the case, Mark Connaughton SC, for Ramford, said his side was entitled to rely on the express terms of the June 2007 contract and rejected claims there was any concluded variation of that contract.

The primary disagreement was over what had factually occurred at meetings between the sides concerning the development, he said.

Under the June 2007 agreement, Ramford claims it was to design and construct the theatre and to ensure various theatre works were designed, carried out and completed.

It claims Mr Crosbie undertook to furnish a contract sum of €10 million on the completion date and to discharge additional amounts paid by Ramford for the purchase and installation of fixtures, fittings and equipment (FF&E).

It is claimed it was agreed, if the direct and vouched costs of the FF&E exceeded €6.5 million, that Mr Crosbie would pay the additional amount within 10 working days from receipt of the relevant invoices, provided the FF&E were installed in accordance with the agreement.

It is also claimed, should any dispute arise, that the agreement provided for that to be referred to an independent professional for determination.

Ramford claims it had spent some €9.4 million on FF&E by July 2009 when a dispute arose between the sides as to liability for some €2.9 million of that amount.

Ramford claims it then sought to have that matter dealt with by an independent professional, as provided for in the agreement.

Mr Crosbie maintained the matters in dispute were not appropriate for determination by the independent professional and asked Ramford not to nominate an independent professional unless it had an order to that effect from the High Court.

The president of the Law Society, on the application of Ramford, had nominated John Gore-Grimes last December as the independent expert but solicitors for Mr Crosbie said he did not accept that nomination.