The High Court has ordered James Buckley to transfer three Kildare folios to Caroline Teltsch, awarded judgment for debts totalling €619,881.15 and £178,092, and directed that a showjumper be returned to her care. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Kennedy on 25 July 2024 after a hearing at which the defendants did not appear or have representation.
The case arose from dealings connected with James Buckley’s proposed equestrian business. Teltsch said she funded the purchase of Jessbrook Stables and neighbouring Enfield properties but that they were registered in Buckley’s name. The court accepted her evidence and that of the conveyancing solicitor, finding that she was the beneficial owner and Buckley had held the properties on trust for her.
The judge ordered the transfer to Teltsch of the remaining properties in folios 4003F, 23407F and 27201F, and declared that Buckley held the sale proceeds of two other folios on trust for her. The court also ordered an account of sales, rents and profits from the Enfield properties. It found that a transfer of the main property into Teltsch’s name did not satisfy any debt because she was already its beneficial owner.
On the money claims, the court accepted that most of the payments pursued were loans repayable on demand. Teltsch did not pursue 13 items relating to capital expenditure on the properties, or certain other payments whose basis was uncertain. The court awarded judgment against Buckley alone for €355,765 and £82,655, and against both defendants jointly for €264,116.15 and £95,437, with interest on both awards.
The court declared Teltsch a 50% owner of BMH Big Time, also known as Louie, and ordered Buckley to return the horse to her care and custody. Teltsch had submitted that Buckley’s share should be treated as forfeited because he had not contributed to expenses; the judge rejected that submission. Buckley’s half of Louie’s expenses was included in the damages against him. The judgment also provided that he could have no access or role in the horse’s care while his debts remained unpaid; any later access would depend on promptly paying half of future expenses.
The defendants’ defence had previously been struck out for failure to comply with a discovery order. Their counterclaim, which alleged they had provided valuable consideration including horse care, was dismissed after they did not appear to pursue it at the hearing. Teltsch was awarded the costs of the proceedings, hearing and reserved costs.