The High Court has refused to confirm an examiner for a Dublin property company owing about €54 million to its main secured creditor, affirming an earlier Circuit Court decision.
Mr Justice Twomey ruled that KC Capital Property Group Limited, which was established to acquire and develop the Greenside building on Cuffe Street, was not the type of business for which examinership was principally designed. The company has two employees, who are also the investors behind the development.
KC Capital borrowed from Fairfield REF ECS II Gen DAC, associated with Oaktree Capital Management, to develop the site. Fairfield appointed receivers on December 19, 2025, after calling in debt of about €54 million. An interim examiner was appointed three days later.
KC Capital attributed delays and additional costs to allegedly defective concrete supplied by Keegan Quarries Limited and is pursuing litigation which it believes could produce damages of up to €15 million. Twomey J stressed that the claim is inherently uncertain and said there was no reason to assume receivers would abandon litigation if it offered a commercially worthwhile return.
The judge said the Greenside building was close to completion and would be finished whether through receivership or examinership. He noted that the 70 employees of contractor Townlink Construction and 57 suppliers or subcontractors were not employed by KC Capital and that Townlink itself opposed continuation of the examinership.
The court also took account of KC Capital's failure, during its initial ex parte examinership application, to disclose earlier property valuations significantly higher than the valuation it then relied upon. It further considered a €50,000 transfer from an account which Fairfield claimed was beneficially owned by it. KC Capital said the money was used to pay creditors and preserve the project and related litigation.
Twomey J said those matters, the likely examinership costs, Fairfield's opposition to any scheme and the absence of additional jobs being saved all weighed against confirmation. The Circuit Court refusal was therefore affirmed, with final orders and costs left for a later mention.