The Court of Appeal has dismissed One Fifty One plc’s appeal against a High Court order requiring it to pay former chief executive Philip Lynch €1.48 million by way of summary judgment.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 26 February 2016, the court held that the company’s solicitors had unequivocally acknowledged in July 2011 that the sum was due to Mr Lynch under a patent income scheme. The appeal concerned only the judgment against One Fifty One; the High Court’s decision to adjourn the claims against the two Chandela defendants to a plenary hearing was not appealed by Mr Lynch.
The correspondence followed Mr Lynch’s departure from the company in July 2011. His solicitors wrote that €1.48 million was owed under the scheme and sought a date for payment. On 15 July, the company’s solicitors said the amount would be paid by 31 July. A further letter on 29 July cited logistical constraints and gave 19 August as the payment date. The money was not paid.
One Fifty One argued on appeal that those assurances assumed the loan note agreement’s formal requirements would be met, and that they had not yet been completed. The company also relied on the fact that the High Court had declined to grant summary judgment against Chandela Investments Ltd and Chandela Nominees Ltd.
Mr Justice Hogan said the July letters did not suggest that completing the formalities was outside the company’s control or depended on steps that only Mr Lynch could take. The letters instead conveyed that payment would be arranged through the Chandela companies. The judgment said the correspondence admitted the debt, despite repayment formally being made by Chandela Nominees to Chandela Investments. The court considered it significant that the assurances were given after Mr Lynch had threatened legal proceedings.
The High Court had found that Investments and Nominees each raised an arguable defence, leaving those claims for a plenary hearing. Their defences included arguments about registration of the loan notes, the repayment requirements and whether a trust had been created. Those issues were not resolved in this appeal.
The Court of Appeal concluded that One Fifty One had no credible defence in light of its admissions and dismissed the appeal, leaving the €1.48 million summary judgment against the company in place.