Judgment: 2019-03-05 · Court archive

High Court permits most discovery requests in dispute over Nemo Rangers grounds

A judgment on competing claims to the Cork property allowed discovery in several categories but rejected others. The court said it would hear counsel before finalising the orders.

High Court, Commercial · [2019] IEHC 166

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Dillon Kenny
  • Darren Kenny (Defendant)
  • John Millett
  • Paul Kenny
What

A judgment on competing claims to the Cork property allowed discovery in several categories but rejected others. The court said it would hear counsel before finalising the orders.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Cork
  • Isle of Man
  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 21 February 2019

    In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2019, Mr Justice Twomey addressed discovery applications, not the underlying ownership or fraud claims. He extended the discovery period sought by the former partners of the Nolans’ solicitor to run from 1 January 2012 to the hearing on 21 February 2019. He also allowed their requests for documents concerning the alleged transfer of €2 million through MECD to a Clear Vision account and the alleged conversion of funds into US dollars.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court allowed several Nolan requests for documents from the Kennys and Dildar Limited (Ireland), including records about the source of money used to buy the grounds, beneficial ownership of the Isle of Man company, control of that company, and Dildar Ireland’s planning application. It also allowed requests concerning awareness of the Nolans’ ownership claims and documents about the acquisition held by the Kenny defendants.

The High Court has permitted most of the discovery categories in a dispute over the ownership and financing of the Nemo Rangers grounds in Cork, while rejecting several requests it considered irrelevant or too broad. The court said it would hear from counsel before finalising the orders.

The case concerns the Nolan family’s claim that about €7 million in pension funds was misappropriated. The Nolans allege that about €2.8 million was used in 2013 to buy the grounds through Dildar Limited, a company registered in the Isle of Man. Dillon Kenny and Darren Kenny say they are the beneficial owners of that company and that the money used for the purchase was theirs. These claims have not been determined.

In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2019, Mr Justice Twomey addressed discovery applications, not the underlying ownership or fraud claims. He extended the discovery period sought by the former partners of the Nolans’ solicitor to run from 1 January 2012 to the hearing on 21 February 2019. He also allowed their requests for documents concerning the alleged transfer of €2 million through MECD to a Clear Vision account and the alleged conversion of funds into US dollars.

The court allowed several Nolan requests for documents from the Kennys and Dildar Limited (Ireland), including records about the source of money used to buy the grounds, beneficial ownership of the Isle of Man company, control of that company, and Dildar Ireland’s planning application. It also allowed requests concerning awareness of the Nolans’ ownership claims and documents about the acquisition held by the Kenny defendants.

Other requests were refused. These included documents about meetings involving Paul Kenny and financial adviser John Millett, the possible removal of the Isle of Man company’s corporate administrator, nominee shareholder arrangements, and certain text communications. The court said those requests were not supported by the pleadings or amounted to a fishing expedition. A request for the public planning file was also refused because the Nolans could obtain it themselves.

The court also permitted discovery sought by the Kennys and Dildar Ireland from the Nolans about their main and other funds, non-Nolan funds held in accounts with those funds, and documents concerning the claimed interest in the property and company. The judgment noted that the Clear Vision account was alleged to contain funds from multiple parties, making the timing and source of payments relevant to deciding who provided the €2.8 million.

The judgment did not decide who owns the grounds or whose money funded the purchase. It records competing claims and sets out discovery rulings to prepare for those issues to be determined later.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review