The High Court has refused Kiernan Milling Unlimited Company’s applications for summary judgment on a €3.4 million settlement claim and for a Mareva injunction over proceeds from three farm sales, leaving the underlying dispute for a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 21 July 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said the defendant had raised an arguable defence that the parties varied their 2018 settlement agreement. The court also directed him to confirm an undertaking that specified sums from the sales would be held by his solicitors pending the determination of the proceedings.
The settlement followed four sets of proceedings issued in 2014 over animal feed, agricultural goods, loans and other commercial matters. Under the 2018 agreement, the defendant was to pay €5.4 million, including €500,000 from a farm sale and quarterly payments of €125,000. The company says he paid €2 million in total, then missed payments from September 2021 onward. It claims the agreement entitles it to the remaining €3.4 million.
The defendant says the parties agreed in 2021 to suspend quarterly payments and defer them until after October 2024. A draft written variation was prepared but never signed. The company accepts there was an “accommodation” but says it applied only to two payments. The judge found the defendant had provided documentary material, including the draft, messages and emails, to support his account. She said the issue was more than a bare assertion and should be tested at trial. The court therefore refused summary judgment; it did not decide whether the alleged variation was made or whether the €3.4 million is ultimately payable.
The company also sought to freeze net proceeds from sales of Ballyfore Farm, Hodgestown Farm and Aherlow Farm. The judge found that the company had a good arguable case and that the properties were assets within the jurisdiction, but said there was no direct evidence that the proceeds would be dissipated. The defendant had said he would instruct his solicitors to hold sums from the sales, and the judgment noted his evidence of other property holdings, although that valuation was unsupported by exhibited material.
The court refused the requested Mareva order. It directed the defendant to confirm an undertaking on the terms of paragraphs 19 and 25 of his 14 February 2023 affidavits, so the specified sums would be held by his solicitors pending determination of the proceedings. The judge made no order on other parts of the motion that had not been addressed at the hearing. The parties were asked to agree a trial timetable, with the matter listed for mention on 28 July to settle orders, confirm the undertaking, address costs and deal with next steps.