The High Court has refused Francis Harte’s application for a further 12-month stay on execution of a €1.8 million money judgment in favour of Ulster Bank Ireland Limited. Mr Justice Allen said Harte had been given “extraordinary latitude” to sell properties and had not used that opportunity.
The judgment, delivered on 9 November 2018, concerned an application to extend and vary a stay first granted in March 2015. That order stayed execution for two years on condition that Harte co-operated in an orderly disposal of nine properties in Co Meath and used the net proceeds to reduce the debt. It also gave Harte carriage of any sale. Allen J observed that these provisions appeared to leave control of the sale process unclear.
The stay had been extended by consent for a further 19 months while the application was adjourned. Harte’s submissions and correspondence described proposed property sales, negotiations with unidentified developers, offers he considered inadequate and efforts to advance planning. The judge noted that earlier proposed sales had not reached signed contracts. The creditor’s evidence raised concern about the limited information provided and whether Harte had realistic expectations about prices.
At the hearing, Harte’s counsel limited the request to two adjacent parcels near Navan, approximately 12 and 16 acres. One was subject to a first registered charge in favour of the bank; the other was said to be unencumbered. Harte argued that other properties, which he said were worth a combined €2.26 million, could satisfy the judgment without selling these parcels. The court found the valuations unpersuasive, noting that if the other properties were valuable and readily saleable, there was no good reason sales had not been achieved earlier.
Allen J said the application would further suspend the charge holder’s enforcement rights and deny the judgment creditor recourse to secured property. He concluded that Harte had shifted from pursuing sales to trying to enhance the land’s value, which was inconsistent with his recent stated intention to sell it “in the near future.”
The court joined Promontoria (Aran) Limited as a plaintiff, identifying it as a person whose presence might be necessary to decide the application. The judge proceeded on the basis, conceded by the plaintiff, that the court had jurisdiction to consider extending the stay, while noting it should be exercised sparingly and for good reason. He refused the application. The judgment does not order a sale or determine the separate dispute about the loan transfer.