The High Court has refused a six-month stay that would have prevented Allied Irish Banks plc from executing judgments against the unencumbered assets of Anthony O’Reilly and two companies over debts totalling €45,314,864.20.
Mr Justice Kelly had entered judgment against all three defendants earlier that week after O’Reilly accepted in an affidavit, for himself and the companies, that they had no defence to the bank’s claim. The later application concerned only whether execution and registration of those judgments should be paused. The defendants did not seek to challenge the judgments themselves.
The court recorded judgments of €22,657,432.10 against O’Reilly, €18,506,433.95 against Indexia Holdings Limited and €4,150,998.15 against Brookside Investments Limited. The underlying lending included facilities to O’Reilly and Brookside in 2009 and a €13 million refinancing facility to Indexia in 2011, alongside guarantees. The defendants had defaulted on repayment obligations.
O’Reilly sought six months to continue an orderly disposal of assets and argued that creditors had agreed to share proceeds from unencumbered assets and any surplus from secured asset sales on a pro rata basis. He said Castlemartin Estate was being marketed and expressed hope that asset sales would meet the bank’s debt. The bank disputed that it was bound by any continuing arrangement with other lenders and opposed delaying its enforcement rights.
The judgment noted that the bank’s standstill agreement with the defendants expired on 31 December 2013, and no replacement agreement had been made. The judge said the agreement incorporated the relevant undertakings for its term and contained a whole-agreement clause. An earlier bank email showed awareness of O’Reilly’s account of a pro rata arrangement, but did not bind the bank to it, the judge said. The defendants’ counsel had not asked the court to decide whether a separate arrangement existed; the judge said he would give that argument little weight in deciding the stay application.
The judge found that the evidence indicated secured assets were unlikely to cover the bank’s debt, making recourse to unencumbered assets probable. He also considered that the proposed undertaking to notify the bank if another creditor moved against the defendants would not adequately protect it, because a further court hearing would be needed to lift any stay. Granting the application would, in effect, restore the expired standstill without its terms, while prejudicing the bank’s ability to enforce its judgment, he said.
The application to stay execution and registration of the judgments was refused. The ruling did not determine the outcome of any later enforcement action or the realisation of assets.