Businessman ordered to pay €8.4m

A BUSINESSMAN has been ordered by the Commercial Court to pay €8.4 million following his alleged failure to honour a contract related to a development at Dublin’s Church Street. A similar judgment order is also being sought against a second man, a solicitor.

William Ennis, of Leopardstown Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin, brought the proceedings against Vincent Maguire and Liam Moran, relating to an alleged agreement of February 2007 concerning a proposed development of the site at 27/31 Church Street.

In separate proceedings last week, six other businessmen who loaned substantial sums to Walsh, Maguire & Company, Northwood Business Campus, Santry, Dublin, a property development company now in liquidation, secured judgment orders against Mr Maguire and Mr Moran requiring them to pay the plaintiffs €2.28m.

When the proceedings came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday, he was told no appearance had been entered by a solicitor on behalf of Mr Maguire, of Heathcliffe House, The Folly, Old Town, Co Dublin, and nor was Mr Maguire in court.

An appearance had been entered by on behalf of Mr Moran, a solicitor with Liam Moran & Company, Malahide Road, Swords, Co Dublin, with an address at St Ives, Bisset Strand, Malahide, Co Dublin.

In those circumstances, the judge granted an application by Robert Barron, for Mr Ennis, for judgment of €8.4m against Mr Maguire.

He adjourned to June 17, an application for judgment in the same sum against Mr Moran.

The case arose from two business contracts of February 22, 2007, between Mr Ennis and the two defendants.

The contracts related to a development at Church Street, Dublin, on lands owned by Mr Ennis. It was claimed the contracts consisted of a management agreement and a Put and Call option deed. It was alleged the option deed provided Mr Ennis could call on the defendants to purchase the option interest defined in the deed and, if he did so, the defendants were required to complete that purchase.

Mr Ennis had, on February 24 last, notified the defendants he intended to exercise the put option as provided for in the option deed but the defendants had failed to pay, it was claimed.