Ringsend Property Ltd -v- Donatex Ltd & Anor [2009] IEHC 568 (18 December 2009)

Ringsend Property Ltd -v- Donatex Ltd & Anor [2009] IEHC 568 (18 December 2009)

The plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment because the conditions for accelerated repayment under clause 5.1.19(i) of the loan stock instrument were met, and none of the defences advanced by the defendants—frustration, mistake, implied term, or procedural non-compliance—are arguable or supported by law. The contract expressly allocated the risk of non-obtainment of planning permission or Section 25 certificate to the defendants, and the guarantee is enforceable.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 568
Parties
Plaintiff: Ringsend Property Limited; First Defendant: Donatex Limited; Second Defendant: Bernard McNamara
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Summary Judgment Application / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Loan Stock Instrument, Guarantee, Frustration of Contract, Mistake of Law, Implied Terms, Assignment of Debt
Contract Law Commercial Law Summary Judgment Loan Stock Instrument Guarantee Frustration of Contract Mistake of Law Implied Terms +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ringsend Property Limited

Plaintiff

Donatex Limited

First Defendant

Bernard McNamara

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Summary Judgment Application / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for repayment under the loan stock instrument and guarantee
  2. 2 Whether any arguable defence exists to resist summary judgment, including frustration, mistake, implied term, or non-compliance with the instrument

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment because the conditions for accelerated repayment under clause 5.1.19(i) of the loan stock instrument were met, and none of the defences advanced by the defendants—frustration, mistake, implied term, or procedural non-compliance—are arguable or supported by law. The contract expressly allocated the risk of non-obtainment of planning permission or Section 25 certificate to the defendants, and the guarantee is enforceable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for €98,145,905
  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant (Mr. McNamara) for €62,550,000 on foot of his personal guarantee