Ronan's €3.3m insurance payment claim sent to fast-track court

The dispute arises out of a deal in which Ronan Group Real Estate swapped its stake in Fibonacci Square with Fortress' interest in Waterfront South Central on Dublin's quays

Johnny Ronan said the basis on which Aquela contends no payment is due was 'manifestly erroneous' and a clear misreading of the relevant clause. Picture: Gareth Chaney/Collins

Developer Johnny Ronan's dispute with a US Fortress Investment Group firm, which he claims owes him €3.3m from an insurance award relating to their joint Fibonacci Square office development in Ballsbridge, Dublin, has been admitted to the fast-track Commercial Court.

Mr Ronan is suing Isle of Man-registered Aquela Ltd. The defendant says his claim is groundless.

The case was admitted to the Commercial Court on Monday by Mr Justice Denis McDonald on the application of the barrister for Mr Ronan, Alison Keirse.

Lyndon MacCann SC, for Aquela Ltd, said his client was not objecting to entry to the commercial list, but he said his side says it is a groundless claim as a matter of contractual interpretation.

The dispute arises out of a deal in which Ronan Group Real Estate (RGRE) swapped its stake in Fibonacci Square — which is leased to Meta — with Fortress' interest in Waterfront South Central on Dublin's quays.

As part of that deal, Mr Ronan said in an affidavit, Aquela was obliged to pay him 75% of the amount received from a business interruption insurance claim arising from delays to the development due to the pandemic. He said demands were made for payment.

Solicitors for the defendant rejected the claim asserting that no payment was due to him arising from service by Aquela of a 'notice of warrant' claim

Mr Ronan said the basis on which Aquela contends no payment is due was "manifestly erroneous" and a clear misreading of the relevant clause.

Mr Justice McDonald adjourned the matter to next month.

In separate proceedings currently pending before the Commercial Court, a number of Ronan Group-related companies are suing Fortress and related firms.

They are claiming the defendants failed to engage with the Ronan firms' effort to refinance facilities under a development assets facility agreement and a mezzanine facility agreement.

This, it is alleged, means the defendants have breached an obligation not to clog, stymie, or otherwise hinder redemption rights under those agreements.

The Ronan companies are seeking damages for breach of contract, unlawful interference with contractual relations and/or inducing breach of contract and/or negligence and/or breach of duty.