The High Court has ordered Promontoria (Aran) Limited to disclose specified documents in its debt claim against Andrew Sheehy, including records about the price it paid for the loans. The order concerns discovery ahead of a plenary hearing; it does not decide whether Sheehy owes the claimed debt or whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief.
Mr Justice Quinn delivered the judgment on 31 July 2019. The plaintiff claims €4,127,785.48, plus interest and damages, arising from facilities Ulster Bank Ireland Limited advanced in 2005 to Sheehy and third parties Noel Tynan and Brian Moloney. Promontoria says it acquired the relevant facilities in 2015. It also seeks restitution and an equitable lien over a commercial property in Bucharest, Romania.
Sheehy denies signing the 2005 facility letter and alleges his name was forged by Moloney. Promontoria says Moloney was authorised to sign for him. Sheehy also denies receiving the benefit of the loans, alleging that funds went to Tynan and Moloney. These are disputed pleadings, not findings in this discovery judgment.
The application concerned four outstanding categories of documents. The judge ordered disclosure of documents evidencing the transfer of the 2005 and 2009 facilities to Promontoria, including relevant transfer and underlying loan documents. He excluded due diligence materials because the pleadings did not raise that process.
The judge also ordered disclosure of correspondence between Ulster Bank or Promontoria and Tynan or Moloney about their indebtedness under the two facilities, including correspondence about Sheehy. He narrowed that category to exclude communications concerning other loans and facilities.
On the purchase price, the judge said the unusual combination of Promontoria’s equitable claims and Sheehy’s plea that it made no payment of substance meant the issue was fairly in dispute. Whether the price is relevant to the merits of unjust enrichment remains for trial. The court ordered discovery of documents relating to the amount paid, while limiting inspection to Sheehy, his solicitor with conduct of the case and counsel. They must undertake not to use or quote the information in open court or case documents without agreement or leave. The judgment does not prevent reliance on relevant information at later hearings or trial, subject to further direction.
For the final category, the judge rejected a broad request covering other borrowings but ordered records of steps taken to recover amounts due under the two facilities and documents relating to any agreement to release Tynan or Moloney from obligations under them. The court left the appropriate discovery timetable and other details of the order to be addressed with counsel.