The High Court has ordered Jim Smith to pay Quinns of Baltinglass Limited €352,446.16 within 28 days, after granting the company a well-charging order over his interests in nine Laois land folios. If he does not pay within that period, eight of the folios are to be sold, with the proceeds distributed as the court directs.
Mr Justice David Keane gave judgment on 11 July 2017 in a mortgage suit brought by the Baltinglass agricultural supplies business. The debt arose from a 2010 judgment against Mr Smith for goods sold and delivered. The court declared that €352,446.16 was due as of 2 February 2016.
The order covers Mr Smith’s interests in folios 5608, 7726, 28061F, 5548, 30277F, 503, 12894F, 16260F and 16605F. The court also ordered an account of other charges affecting the lands, inquiries into their priorities and into the people with interests in the properties and their respective shares.
Mr and Mrs Smith said folio 16260F was their family home and that it was landlocked within folio 12894F. Quinns stopped seeking an order to sell folio 16260F, while continuing to seek sale of the other land. The judge described the concession concerning the claimed home as sensible and appropriate. He ordered an inquiry into whether an easement over folio 12894F was needed to provide reasonable access from folio 16260F to a public road.
The court ordered sale, if payment is not made, of folios 5608, 7726, 28061F, 5548, 30277F, 503, 12894F and 16605F. It did not order sale of folio 16260F at this stage, but gave Quinns liberty to return to seek such an order if necessary. The judgment says the parties would be heard separately on the order’s specific form and related orders.
Mr Smith argued that the lands were already charged to financial institutions and that he was effectively insolvent. The judge found there was too little evidence to assess his means, the land values or the amounts secured. He rejected the argument that those claims justified refusing sale orders for the non-home lands.
Mrs Smith, who was joined because she co-owned some of the lands, raised allegations about Quinns’ accounting and grain credits at trial. The judge found she lacked standing to claim damages over a contract to which she was not a party, and that the claim had been raised too late. The court’s judgment records those allegations as her claims; it did not make findings that Quinns had engaged in the alleged conduct.