A Commercial Court dispute between the operators of the Kilkenny Shop and Restaurant in Dublin and its landlord has been settled.

Clydaville Investments, which runs the Nassau Street store and many other Kilkenny Group outlets specialising in the promotion of Irish food, crafts and design, had brought proceedings arising over €150m plans by the landlords, Setanta Centre Unlimited Company, to redevelop the centre.

The case was due to commence before Mr Justice Michael Quinn last Wednesday but was adjourned to allow the sides enter into out-of-court settlement talks.

When the case returned before the judge on Tuesday the court was informed by Declan McGrath SC for Clydaville, that following discussions the parties had reached an agreement and the dispute between them had been settled.

All that was required from the court was to strike out the proceedings, and vacate all previous orders made in the case, counsel said.

No order on costs was required, he said.

Eoin McCullough SC for Setanta, said that his client was consenting to those proposals.

No details of the settlement, which is understood to be confidential, were revealed in open court.

The case had been listed to run before the court for 10 weeks.

Mr Justice Quinn welcomed the settlement and expressed his hope that the proposed plan went well. He struck out the proceedings.

The case had centred around the proposed redevelopment, which Clydaville had objected to, of the Setanta Centre which was approved by Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanála.

Clydaville claimed rules and regulations advanced by the Setanta owners as part of the proposed works, would interfere with pedestrian and vehicular access, including deliveries, to its Nassau Street outlet.

These planned rules would completely undermine the operation of its business if implemented in full, Clydaville had said.

It was also concerned about the practicability of restricting access for deliveries to the centre to four hours a day.

It had also claimed that the proposed rules have nothing to do with the operation of the Setanta Centre but rather are designed to get the plaintiff out of the way while the redevelopment is executed.

In its action it had sought several orders and declarations including the prohibition on the implementation of the new rules and an order preventing the defendant from interfering with the entrance and exit from the shop premises.

The defendant had denied all of the claims.