The High Court has allowed Jim Cahill to buy the Seepersad defendants’ interests in a nursing-home partnership, setting a price of €324,000 for their 45% share in the property and business. The option is conditional on additional payments, a secured indemnity and final calculations by the parties’ experts. The court did not make the final orders concluding the case, and said a receiver may be appointed if Mr Cahill declines the buyout.
In a judgment delivered on 9 April 2024, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts resolved outstanding disputes over the partnership accounts, interest and legal costs. The decision follows an earlier judgment in October 2023. The experts must calculate the balancing payment due to the defendants after accounting for their 45% share of profits and drawings, and calculate interest on specified profit shares from 2016 to 2021. They were directed to agree those figures within 14 days.
The judge accepted the defendants’ expert’s estimates of a €111,304 profit for 2022 and a €7,126 loss for 2023, citing the lack of completed accounts and tax records and the plaintiff’s control of partnership financial information. She accepted the 2021 loss recorded in that year’s accounts. She also rejected a proposed depreciation adjustment, saying the issue could not be introduced at that stage without reopening the case and hearing new evidence.
The purchase terms include €136,000 in salary arrears for Tara Seepersad, brought up to 30 April 2024, and payment by Mr Cahill of €39,583 mortgage interest, €20,000 for educational losses and €150,000 in general and aggravated damages. The plaintiff must also provide a suitably secured indemnity for partnership liabilities, particularly revenue liabilities, plus up to €25,000 including VAT for the defendants’ vouched professional fees negotiating with Revenue over specified personal tax interest and penalties.
The defendants must cooperate with transferring their interests if the plaintiff takes up the option, including signing necessary documents within 21 days of a request. The parties were due back before the court on 25 April to report the agreed figures and whether the option would be taken up. If not, the judge said she would make an alternative order that could include appointing a receiver. Certain payments to the defendants would remain due even if the plaintiff did not buy them out.
The judge ordered Mr Cahill to pay the defendants’ party-and-party costs, subject to reductions: the costs are to be calculated on a five-day rather than seven-day trial, and the defendants cannot recover the cost of their initial expert report. Costs of the nine motions were allocated separately, with no order on three, the defendants paying two and the plaintiff paying four.