The High Court has refused Stapleford Finance Designated Activity Company’s application for summary judgment of €16,896,207.26 against Patrick Kearney, directing that the dispute proceed to a plenary hearing on all issues.
In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2018, Mr Justice Brian McGovern said the case was not suitable for summary disposal because Kearney had raised arguable defences requiring a full hearing. The court did not decide whether the claimed debt was due or whether the settlement agreement had been breached.
Stapleford’s claim arose from a settlement deed dated 14 November 2014. The judgment says the company had acquired liabilities connected to a facility granted by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited in 2009. The account balance was €19,256,207.26 on 28 October 2014. Under the settlement, Kearney paid €2.36m, and security over certain subordinated bonds was to be released to him after payment.
Stapleford alleged that Kearney had not disclosed that he was contemplating selling the bonds, which were later sold for €6m. It relied on settlement terms requiring full disclosure and allowing termination and proceedings in the event of specified breaches within 24 months. Stapleford argued it was entitled to pursue the outstanding liability.
Kearney said Stapleford’s representative, James Ferris, knew he intended to sell the bonds. Kearney’s affidavit also said Ferris was present during telephone calls at an October 2014 meeting in which the sale and prices were discussed. Emails exhibited by Kearney, the judgment records, indicated Stapleford knew the bonds were being transferred to an account with Davy Stockbrokers so they could be traded.
Ferris disputed Kearney’s account of the meeting, saying he and a colleague were not in the room during calls about the sale or prices. The judge found a clear factual conflict. Stapleford separately argued that Kearney had not disclosed an agreed €6m sale price. The court said whether Ferris had heard a discussion of the price was an issue for a plenary hearing.
The parties also disputed how the deed’s 24-month wording affected Stapleford’s right to terminate or sue. The judge left that interpretation question for the full hearing. Kearney further raised a claim that the underlying facility was connected to a share support scheme and involved potential illegality; the judgment records that this issue was also unsuitable for summary disposal.
The order was that the matter proceed to plenary hearing on all issues.