Sheehan -v- Breccia & Ors and Flynn & anor -v- Breccia [2016] IEHC 120 (04 March 2016)

Sheehan -v- Breccia & Ors and Flynn & anor -v- Breccia [2016] IEHC 120 (04 March 2016)

The balance of convenience strongly favors the plaintiffs, as requiring payment into escrow or granting a stay would likely prevent redemption, cause irreparable harm, and unlawfully fetter their right to redeem. Breccia's application is refused, but a temporary second charge over the shares may be required as security pending appeal if the plaintiffs undertake to provide it. Stays on costs are granted only to the extent necessary to allow for appeal procedures.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 120
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Sheehan; Defendant: Breccia; Defendant: Irish Agricultural Development Company; Defendant: Blackrock Hospital Limited; Defendant: George Duffy; Defendant: Rosaleen Duffy; Defendant: Tully Corbett Limited; Plaintiff: John Flynn; Plaintiff: Benray Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (loan Redemption Disputes) / Post Judgment Applications for Stay and Related Orders Pending Appeal
Outcome
Breccia's applications for stays and payment into escrow refused, subject to undertakings for second charges as security pending appeal; limited stays on costs granted as specified.
Legal Topics
Loan Redemption, Penalty Clauses, Estoppel, Enforcement Costs, Stay of Execution, Security for Disputed Sums, Right of Redemption
Banking and Finance Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Loan Redemption Penalty Clauses Estoppel Enforcement Costs +3 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Sheehan

Plaintiff

Breccia

Defendant

Irish Agricultural Development Company

Defendant

Blackrock Hospital Limited

Defendant

George Duffy

Defendant

Rosaleen Duffy

Defendant

Tully Corbett Limited

Defendant

John Flynn

Plaintiff

Benray Limited

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (loan Redemption Disputes) / Post Judgment Applications for Stay and Related Orders Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay or payment into escrow should be ordered pending appeal of the redemption figures
  2. 2 Whether Breccia is entitled to additional security for disputed sums pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether the right to redeem loans is being unlawfully fettered by such applications

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience strongly favors the plaintiffs, as requiring payment into escrow or granting a stay would likely prevent redemption, cause irreparable harm, and unlawfully fetter their right to redeem. Breccia's application is refused, but a temporary second charge over the shares may be required as security pending appeal if the plaintiffs undertake to provide it. Stays on costs are granted only to the extent necessary to allow for appeal procedures.

Court Disposition

Breccia's applications for stays and payment into escrow refused, subject to undertakings for second charges as security pending appeal; limited stays on costs granted as specified.

Orders

  • Refusal of stay or payment into escrow pending appeal, subject to plaintiffs providing undertakings for second charges over shares as security for any sums due if Breccia succeeds on appeal.
  • Short stay granted to allow Breccia to apply to the Court of Appeal for a longer stay if undertakings are provided.