Garcia & Anor v Kilkenny & Ors [2016] IEHC 89 (19 February 2016)

Garcia & Anor v Kilkenny & Ors [2016] IEHC 89 (19 February 2016)

The application for trial of a preliminary issue was refused due to undue delay by the Bank in seeking such determination, inefficiency caused by piecemeal applications, and the need for expedition in commercial proceedings. The Bank should have moved promptly; multiple preliminary applications are undesirable.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Aidan Garcia (Liquidator); Applicant: Panshire Limited (In Liquidation); Respondent: Mark Kilkenny; Respondent: Patrick Rooney; Respondent: Danske Bank
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Priority of Security, Preliminary Issue Procedure, Liquidator's Claims, Mortgage Security, Estoppel, Delay in Applications
Company Law Commercial Law Insolvency Law Priority of Security Preliminary Issue Procedure Liquidator's Claims Mortgage Security Estoppel +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidan Garcia (Liquidator)

Applicant

Panshire Limited (In Liquidation)

Applicant

Mark Kilkenny

Respondent

Patrick Rooney

Respondent

Danske Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the security held by Danske Bank ranks in priority to any claims, rights or interests asserted by the Applicants in respect of the Clearstream Development and/or related sale proceeds
  2. 2 Whether the application for trial of a preliminary issue should be granted given alleged delay

Ratio Decidendi

The application for trial of a preliminary issue was refused due to undue delay by the Bank in seeking such determination, inefficiency caused by piecemeal applications, and the need for expedition in commercial proceedings. The Bank should have moved promptly; multiple preliminary applications are undesirable.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for trial of preliminary issue refused
  • Case to be brought on for trial as soon as possible