The Government does not accept that South Wharf has the right to buy 25 acres of prime real estate in Dublin from Dublin Port Company for a token price.
"This issue is primarily one for the Dublin Port Company, as it is the owner of the land in question. However, the Government does not accept the view that the tenant in this case is entitled to purchase the fee simple in this property,"a spokeswoman for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources said.
The Dublin Port Company has a number of legal defences available to it and these will be relied on to the fullest extent. This is a complex and technical area of law and the Government and the Dublin Port Company are taking further legal advice on the matter, said the spokeswoman.
The Government moved in early May to rush legislation through the Oireachtas to close a loophole in ground-rent legislation which would have given people renting property from cross-Border bodies, such as Waterways Ireland, the opportunity to buy out the freehold for a nominal price, as South Wharf is now attempting to do with the former Irish Glass Bottle site.
In his Dáil speech at the time, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Mr Eamon O Cuiv, said the amendment was necessary to fix "a possible defect" in the law.
"A tenant of a private landlord who pays ground rent has, under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No 2) Act 1978, the right in certain circumstances to buy out the fee simple, ie to buy out the ground rent and hence acquire unfettered ownership of the property at nominal cost.
In State land cases, that right does not apply to tenants in possession of commercial leases, he said. The issue was back before the Cabinet within weeks when the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Michael Martin, brought forward an emergency amendment to ensure that IDA lands rented on long leases for industrial development purposes as distinct from commercial purposes were not lost to the State.
The IDA had earlier been forced to sell a factory on the Clonshaugh Industrial Estate for a nominal price to a still unnamed company.
The issue came back a third time shortly afterwards when the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resourcesmoved to ensure that no more of its property was put at risk.
The Department of Education and Science, asked if any properties owned by it are at risk, said: "While this issue has not arisen to date in the education sector, the potential implications of the issue for the education sector are being examined in the Department, with a view to considering whether any action, legislative or otherwise, is necessary."
The Department of the Environment and Local Governmentsaid that it was satisfied that none of its properties were at risk.
The Department of Defence, said it was "adamant" that none of its lands or buildings could be affected.
