Paddy Teahon, the former executive chairman of the State company that owns the €62 million National Aquatic Centre, has denied before the High Court that he was under extreme pressure from Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to have matters sorted so that the centre would be open in time for the 2003 Special Olympics.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan also heard yesterday that the building contracting firm Rohcon had made a payment of €750,000 to Dublin Waterworld Limited (DWL) to attract it into the consortium which secured the contract for construction and operation of the centre in April 2003.
The action has been taken by Campus Stadium Ireland Development Limited (CSID), the State company established in 2000 to secure and pay for the building and operation of the centre.
The judge is hearing an application by CSID for forfeiture of the lease for the aquatic centre from DWL for alleged multiple breaches of the terms of the lease. DWL is opposing the application.
Yesterday Mr Teahon said he had never given consent to any arrangement under which another company, Dublin Waterworld Management Limited (DWML), a wholly owned subsidiary of DWL, would manage the centre for Pat Mulcair, a Limerick businessman. However, he said, John Moriarty of DWL had, without the consent of CSID, put in place an arrangement where DWL would not be the operator of the centre and this was outside the terms of the lease.
In cross-examination, Hugh O'Neill SC, for DWL, said Mr Moriarty would tell the court that, after Mr Moriarty refused to sign a project agreement for the centre in 2002 because the wording of a guarantee was not agreed, Mr Teahon had taken Mr Moriarty into a separate room.
Mr Moriarty would say Mr Teahon told him that the Taoiseach was calling and that he, Mr Teahon, was under extreme pressure to have matters sorted.
Mr Teahon, who was then executive chairman of CSID, said he did not recall such an exchange. He was not saying it did not happen. He had no recollection of it. There was pressure to have the centre in place for the Special Olympics but no personal pressure was being put on him.
He accepted that building works for the centre had proceeded some nine months before a formal building contract was signed. He said an arrangement was put in place to try and ensure the aquatic centre would be ready for the Special Olympics. He did not agree there was a situation where the project could have gone "off the rails".
He did agree it would have been better had CSID more time to put all the details in place. Mr O'Neill put to Mr Teahon that there was later an inquiry by the Attorney General's office into the corporate governance of CSID which was critical of CSID.
Mr Teahon said there were views expressed about how information should have been transmitted at that time and the inquiry's report raised issues about the way in which the parties to the consortium which secured the contract for the centre were changed. He said he had ceased to be chairman of CSID in March 2002 after discussions with the Government following the inquiry.
Mr Teahon said CSID had taken legal advice about changes to the consortium which was awarded the NAC contract and was advised that CSID could approve the changes because they were in line with the public tender.
However, he was "very clear" Mr Moriarty had never said to him that beneficial ownership of the lease for the aquatic centre had been transferred by DWL to Mr Mulcair with the latter in turn entering into agreements with another company - DWML - to manage the centre on Mr Mulcair's behalf.
The case continues today.