A dispute between Esat Telecom and the Director of Telecommunications Regulation, Ms Etain Doyle, has been settled. The High Court case related to an alleged "predatory pricing" policy introduced by Telecom Eireann late last year.
Under the terms of the settlement, the director has agreed to reconsider - should Esat make a complaint - a scheme of discounts for business customers introduced by Bord Telecom Eireann plc in November last.
Esat Telecommunications Ltd, of The Malt House, Grand Canal Quay, Dublin, had challenged the director's finding of October 24th, 1997, that there was insufficient evidence to show that the business phoneusage scheme proposed by Telecom, involving lower prices, amounted to predatory pricing.
In proceedings before the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, Esat had sought an order quashing this decision.
It also sought a second order instructing the director, in conformity with her obligations under Irish and EU law, to make a decision on the reductions and discounts introduced by Telecom Eireann in November 1997.
In court yesterday, Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for Esat, said a good measure of agreement had been reached between the parties overnight and this was reflected in a settlement statement he proposed to read to the court.
The statement said the director, in the context of her supervisory role under Article 14 of a 1995 EU directive, would reconsider the Telecom business prices package, introduced on November 30th, 1997, should Esat wish to make a complaint about it.
The statement added that the director, who was committed to reviewing and improving determination procedures, would fully comply with the requirements of natural and constitutional justice and would, in respect of each complaint, give a reasoned decision.
Mr Shipsey said that on this basis the case brought by his client could be struck out. He then applied for costs up to and including January 26th, when leave to seek a judicial review of the director's actions was granted.
Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for the director, said the agreement reached did not imply any improper procedural action or other impropriety by Ms Doyle, and there was no question of any order against his client as far as this agreement was concerned.
Her role was a supervisory one and not one of an investigative nature. It was open to any party to make a complaint about any phone charge discount scheme and the director would look at the matter.
In view of the apparently amicable manner in which agreement had been reached, he asked that no order for costs be made against his client.
Mr Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, for Bord Telecom Eireann plc, which was a notice party to the proceedings, applied for his costs against Esat.
Mr Shipsey said Telecom had attended the hearing at its own instance and not at the request or invitation of Esat.
Mr Justice Morris congratulated the parties on reaching an agreement and said good sense was shown in the compromise. Awarding costs to Esat against the director up to and including January 26th, the judge directed that both Esat and the director should equally share responsibility for the costs of Telecom Eireann.