A firm of estate agents has brought a legal action against developer Sean Dunne over some €1.5 million in unpaid fees.
The action by CB Richard Ellis against Mr Dunne was transferred to the Commercial Court today by Mr Justice Peter Kelly who listed it for hearing on February 18th.
The judge was told by Brian Murray SC, for Mr Dunne, the alleged liability was not of Mr Dunne’s but of one of his companies, Mountbrook Homes Ltd.
CB Ellis has claimed in an affidavit the agreement involved in the case was made with Mr Dunne personally and alleges the appearance entered by the defence was “solely for the purpose of delay”.
Asked by the judge what was the defence, Mr Murray said there was “a very significant dispute” about the amount of the claim and there was also an issue in relation to the level of services provided.
CB Richard Ellis, with registered offices at Connaught House, Burlington Road, Dublin, is claiming the fees in relation to a commercial property transaction involving the sale of premises known as Riverside IV at Sir John Rogerson’s Quay in Dublin and the part exchange of that with another property, Hume House, Pembroke Road.
In an affidavit, CB Ellis director Willie Dowling said Mr Dunne had, under an oral agreement evidenced by a fax of September 15th 2004, engaged the sevrices of CB Ellis concerning the transaction. CB Ellis had acted for Mr Dunne personally and also for his companies on many occasions.
While the fax of September 15th 2004 was on the headed notepaper of Mountbrook, the agreement on the Riverside IV deal was with Mr Dunne in his personal capacity and Mountbrook had no involvement with the transaction “on any level”, Mr Dowling said.
He said the aspect of his company’s fee which was in dispute related to an investment fee agreed at 0.75 per cent of the sale price, which amounted to €1.44 million, plus VAT. He had later negotiated a reduction of that fee on a goodwill basis to €1.25 million, plus VAT (a total of €1.52 million).
Mr Dowling said his company fully and diligently carried out all the work required and an invoice was sent to Mr Dunne on November 28th 2006.
Mr Dunne had personally paid the other fees due on the transaction, which were invoiced to him personally, and had said he would pay the investment fee once the property transaction was completed, Mr Dowling said, adding he agreed to wait until then.
The transaction had completed in September last but Mr Dunne had failed to pay. At a meeting in November last, Mr Dunne had disputed the level of fee and this was “entirely at odds” with his previous position.
