The High Court has dismissed Tifco Limited’s application to strike out a €3,500,500 claim brought by five companies over money taken from a deposit account after Tifco failed to make payments under a sinking fund agreement.
The ruling does not decide whether Tifco is liable. Ms Justice Reynolds held that the claim was not shown to be bound to fail on the material before her. She said the court needed the full factual background to the 2014 settlement documents and other documents connected with those transactions before the parties’ dispute over their meaning could be properly assessed.
The plaintiffs are BGB Property Holdings Limited, Arno Properties Limited, Tagus Properties Limited, Tiber Properties Limited and Downby Developments Limited. The claim concerns the Crowne Plaza Hotel at Green Park Estate, Dundalk. The first four companies borrowed money to part-finance the hotel, while Downby provided a €3.5 million deposit as security. Tifco was to pay €4 million into a sinking fund in annual instalments, but the judgment records that its only payment was €292,000 in August 2009.
In July 2012, the bank enforced its charge over Downby’s deposit and applied the money towards the borrowers’ debt. The plaintiffs say Tifco’s failure to meet its sinking fund obligations led to that loss and seek an indemnity or damages. Those are claims made by the plaintiffs, not findings made in this ruling.
Tifco argued that the claim was barred by a settlement agreement and a deed of release made in December 2014, when Tifco bought the hotel for €4 million. It said those documents settled obligations connected with the hotel purchase option and released claims under the sinking fund agreement. The plaintiffs disputed that interpretation and argued that the documents and surrounding transactions required discovery and a full hearing.
The judge found that the dispute was not one of the clear cases suitable for summary dismissal. She concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a credible basis for arguing that they might establish facts necessary to succeed at trial. The order dismisses Tifco’s strike-out application; it does not resolve the claim itself. The judge said she would hear from the parties on costs.