The High Court has ordered Joseph Sheehan to pay Breccia €7,894,534.44 on its loan counterclaim and refused his request to delay payment of the defendants’ costs while he pursued an appeal.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Quinn on 30 June 2020, dealt with the form of orders and costs following his 27 May judgment in Module Three of the proceedings. In that earlier judgment, the court dismissed Sheehan’s claims for declarations, damages, accounts and inquiries. It said it would grant judgment on Breccia’s counterclaim for amounts due under loan facilities.
The court declared that Breccia’s purchase of Sheehan’s loan facilities was lawful, valid and effective, and that Breccia was entitled under the mortgage to appoint a receiver over, or exercise the power of sale in relation to, Sheehan’s shares in Blackrock Hospital Limited. The judge said Sheehan made no submission on those declarations.
Breccia had received €3,747,814.46 in dividends attributable to Sheehan’s shareholding, and a €10 million interim payment from a receiver who sold the shares to Irish Agricultural Development Company. Breccia proposed crediting €5.97 million of that interim payment against the loan, after deducting €4.03 million in estimated enforcement costs. It relied on contractual terms and a Court of Appeal ruling concerning costs included in a redemption figure.
Justice Quinn accepted the estimated costs as a deduction when calculating the credit, but said their amount had not been taxed or adjudicated and was not being approved in this ruling. Taking account of the payments, estimated costs and interest, the court entered judgment for €7,894,534.44, the balance Breccia said was due on 10 June 2020. The €1,518,846.57 claimed under the Benray Guarantee was excluded because Breccia had said it was not pursuing that part of its counterclaim.
The court ordered Sheehan to pay the costs of the module to the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. The third defendant had already obtained a costs order. Sheehan sought a stay until his appeal was heard and judgment delivered, referring also to a Chapter 11 filing in Illinois. The defendants opposed a stay, raising his appeal record and compliance with directions. The judge refused the request, citing his findings in the earlier judgment and Sheehan’s failure to comply with directions to progress the Module One appeal.