The High Court entered judgment for James and Linda Pike against seven respondents for €409,349, jointly and severally, and stayed enforcement until 18 January 2019 or further order. The stay was temporary: the court adjourned the remaining hearing on the respondents’ application and allowed the Pikes to seek an earlier variation of the order on three clear days’ notice.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor on 9 November 2018 in proceedings under section 212 of the Companies Act 2014 concerning Atelier Property Management Limited and Atelier Property Asset Management Limited. The judgment said agreements reached after mediations on 12 July and 24 August 2018 entitled the Pikes to judgment after payment was not made by the 31 October deadline. There was no dispute before the court about entering judgment or its jurisdiction to stay enforcement.
The respondents sought the stay under section 21 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926. Their application relied on an affidavit by Matthew McAdden, sworn on 7 November. He described an unexpected delay in selling personal assets in the United Kingdom, including three properties, to meet the debt. The affidavit attributed the delay in part to economic consequences and uncertainty around the UK’s departure from the European Union. The respondents also said enforcement could affect their ability to meet settlement obligations because of existing relationships with third-party investors.
The Pikes had little time to consider that affidavit and had not filed a reply. Their counsel argued that the respondents had not been candid before the payment deadline about the difficulties later raised, and that their conduct had worsened an already serious lack of trust. The judgment records that the particular prejudice to the Pikes from a stay remained unanswered.
The court said the affidavit indicated that the respondents could not pay immediately, were not solely responsible for that inability, and had offered assurances and an undertaking that gave a reasonable prospect of payment of the judgment sum and interest without enforcement. It distinguished the case from AIB v O’Reilly, noting the absence of previous standstill agreements or evidence of competing creditors, and that the amount at issue there was much larger.
Balancing the Pikes’ immediate entitlement to enforce against the limited opportunity to test the respondents’ factual claims, the court granted the stay to 18 January 2019 and adjourned the balance of the motion to that date at 10.45am. The Pikes could file replying affidavits by 11 January; the respondents could file a further supplemental affidavit by 4pm on 15 January. If the sums due, including interest, were paid by 18 January, the court said it would hear only an application about the motion’s costs.