Sheehan v Breccia and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Quinn
Judgment Date30 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] IEHC 320
Docket Number[No. 2014/10816 P.]
CourtHigh Court
Date30 June 2020
BETWEEN
JOSEPH SHEEHAN
PLAINTIFF
AND
BRECCIA, IRISH AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, BLACKROCK HOSPITAL LIMITED, GEORGE DUFFY, ROSALEEN DUFFY

AND

TULLY CORBETT LIMITED
DEFENDANTS

[2020] IEHC 320

Quinn J.

[No. 2014/10816 P.]

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL

Counterclaim – Quantum – Costs – Defendants seeking costs – Whether a stay on the order for costs should be granted

Facts: The High Court (Quinn J), on 27 May, 2020, delivered judgment in Module Three of proceedings which related to the allegations of the plaintiff, Mr Sheehan, of conspiracy and other claims against the defendants, Breccia, Irish Agricultural Development Company, Blackrock Hospital Limited, Mr Duffy, Ms Duffy and Tully Corbett Limited, and a counterclaim by the first defendant (the Principal Judgment). In accordance with the directions of the President, the parties were requested to make written submissions as to the precise form of order and concerning costs. Submissions were received from the parties. The plaintiff’s submission was confined to a request for a stay on any order for costs. The plaintiff submitted that his request was consistent with the Court’s judgment in Module One where costs were stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The submissions of Breccia were more extensive, and related in part to the calculation of the amount of the judgment on its counterclaim. In Mr Sheeran’s affidavit, he verified the amounts received by Breccia in respect of dividends from the third defendant, and the payment received from the receiver on 28 May, 2020, and the estimates of the costs. Mr Sheeran exhibited an up-to-date calculation of the amount Breccia claimed pursuant to the loan, taking into account all of the adjustments and he averred that the balance due as at 10 June, 2020 was €7,894,534.44. The first and second defendants submitted that the court should make the declarations which it sought in para. 84 (a) and (b) of the counterclaim. The defendants submitted that the making of those declarations follows as a corollary of the refusal by Quinn J to make the declarations sought by the plaintiff. The first and second defendants submitted that they were entitled to an order for their costs.

Held by Quinn J that, having regard to the findings he made in the Principal Judgment, it was appropriate to make the declarations claimed by the first and second defendants and the Order would contain such declarations. Quinn J held that he would grant judgment for the amount of €7,894,534.44. There being no special circumstances justifying their refusal, Quinn J held that the defendants were entitled to their costs of this module and he ordered that the plaintiff pay those costs; the third defendant had previously secured an order for its costs against the plaintiff and accordingly the costs order made would be in favour of the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.

Quinn J held that, having regard to his findings in the Principal Judgment and to the plaintiff’s record of failing to comply with directions made to progress the appeal in Module One of the proceedings, he was not persuaded that it would be just to grant any stay in this Module. Accordingly, he refused to grant a stay on the order for costs.

Decision on quantum of counterclaim and on costs.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Quinn delivered on the 30th day of June, 2020
1

On 27 May, 2020 I delivered judgment in Module Three of these proceedings which related to the plaintiff's allegations of conspiracy and other claims against the defendants, and a counterclaim by the first named defendant, (the “Principal Judgment”).

2

The judgment was delivered electronically and in accordance with the directions of the President, the parties were requested to make, within fourteen days of the delivery of the judgment, written submissions as to the precise form of order and concerning costs.

3

Submissions were received from the parties. The plaintiff's submission was confined to a request for a stay on any order for costs. The submissions of Breccia were more extensive, and related in part to the calculation of the amount of the judgment on its counterclaim. Having regard to the contents of that submission. I afforded the parties an opportunity to make supplemental submissions. No further submissions were made and this is my ruling on the issues arising from the original submissions.

4

In the Principal Judgment I dismissed the claims of the plaintiff for the following declarations:

(1) That the first named defendant, its servants or agents or any person acting in concert with it is not entitled to acquire the plaintiff's loan facilities dated 28 March, 2006, 12 November, 2008 and/or the Guarantee and Indemnity dated 28 March, 2006 (‘the Benray Guarantee’) by reason of unlawful and/or illegal conduct (para. 4 of the prayer for reliefs), by reason of its involvement in the bidding process (para. 5), by reason of breach of the plaintiff's constitutional rights and/or his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and/or his rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (para. 6);

(2) A declaration that any sale or transfer of the plaintiff's loan facilities was null, void, invalid or illegal (para. 7); and

(3) A declaration that the defendants have conspired to adversely and prejudicially affect the property interests of the plaintiff in divesting, selling and seeking to enforce against the shareholding of the plaintiff (para. 22).

5

I refused the plaintiff's claim for damages and for accounts and enquiries.

6

I also stated that I would grant judgment on the counterclaim in the amounts claimed by Breccia, namely the amount of €17,507,742.28 due pursuant to the plaintiff's loans, and the amount of €1,518,846.57 due by the plaintiff pursuant to the Benray Guarantee together with interest up to the date of judgment calculated in the manner evidenced by Mr. Sheeran, who had given evidence on behalf of Breccia.

Counterclaim declarations.
7

The first and second named defendants submit that the court should make the declarations which it sought in para. 84 (a) and (b) of the counterclaim, namely as follows:

(a) A declaration that the purchase by Breccia of the plaintiff's loan facilities was lawful, valid and effective.

(b) A declaration that Breccia is entitled, pursuant to the mortgage, to appoint a receiver over and/or exercise the power of sale in relation to the plaintiff's shares in the third named defendant.

8

The defendants submitted that the making of these declarations follows as a corollary of the refusal by me to make the declarations sought by the plaintiff and referred to at para. 4 above.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT