The High Court has directed Eircom to deliver, within two weeks, its defence to a claim for damages brought against the company by rival companies Ocean Communications and Esat BT arising from Eircom's operation of pricing discount schemes.

Mr Justice Kelly also yesterday directed Ocean and Esat to specify what loss and damage they have allegedly incurred as a result of Eircom's alleged breach of decisions of the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg).

He further directed lawyers for Esat and Ocean to confirm within 48 hours to Eircom that their claim that Eircom is abusing its dominant position is limited to the claims made within their statement of claim.

The two companies claim Eircom offered illegal price discounts to firms and to some high-end residential users to boost its market share between 1999 and 2000.

Mr David Taylor, Esat's director of regulatory affairs, has previously claimed in an Irish Times interview that Eircom's alleged anti-competitive behaviour costs his company some €100 million.

Before the court yesterday was a motion by Ocean and Esat seeking judgment in their favour due to Eircom's failure to file a defence to the proceedings brought against it.

The plaintiffs argued Eircom had refused to comply with court orders regarding delivery of its defence.

Eircom rejected that claim and argued the failure to file a defence was due to the plaintiff companies' failure to set out in their pleadings exactly what loss and damage they had incurred.

The proceedings arose following a decision of ComReg on October 17th, 2002, that Eircom had not applied performance discount schemes in a manner consistent with the specific terms of those schemes. ComReg directed Eircom to take a number of measures in relation to the schemes.

In proceedings initiated last year, Esat and Ocean complained Eircom's operation of the schemes had adversely affected the ability of Eircom's competitors to compete on fair and equal terms. It was alleged Eircom had failed to specify its prices and tariffs in a transparent manner as required by statute and under the terms of its General Telecommunications Licence.

It was further claimed Eircom had failed to meet its obligations under several EU directives, had abused its dominant position and had conferred advantages on some of its customers but not on others.