Paddy McKillen Jnr consents to judgment over €2.3m debt owed to lender

Last month, lawyers for Mr McKillen Jnr said he was 'firmly insolvent', and had just €270 in his bank account

At the High Court on Friday, Martin Hayden, counsel for Mr McKillen Jnr with Keith Farry, told Judge Eileen Roberts that his client was conceding Herbert Street Finance’s (HSF) claim for some €2.3 million. File photo: INPHO/Ryan Byrne

Businessman Paddy McKillen Jnr has consented to judgment against him over a debt of €2.3 million owed to a lender.

Mr McKillen Jnr’s concession arises in circumstances where he is seeking a personal insolvency arrangement, and recently obtained a protection certificate after a court heard he had debts of €27.7 million. 

The certificate, obtained late last month, protects him from his creditors for 70 days.

At the High Court on Friday, Martin Hayden, counsel for Mr McKillen Jnr with Keith Farry, told Judge Eileen Roberts that his client was conceding Herbert Street Finance’s (HSF) claim for some €2.3 million. He said that his side were not in a position to advance their claims, given the personal insolvency process now embarked upon.

The concession comes in proceedings brought by Mr McKillen Jnr, in which he claimed HSF was not authorised under Central Bank regulations to grant the loan.

Bernard Dunleavy, counsel for HSF with Niall Ó hUiginn, asked the judge to grant judgment in favour of the lender for €2,313,970. He asked for Mr McKillen Jnr’s claim against HSF to be struck out.

Last month, in an application seeking court protection from creditors, lawyers for Mr McKillen Jnr said he was “firmly insolvent”, and had just €270 in his bank account.

Mr McKillen Jnr, of Torquay Road, Foxrock, Dublin, owes €2.9 million to his wife Edel McKillen and €1.8 million to his mother Maura McKillen, the court heard.

In August, Mr McKillen Jnr’s bid to strike down HSF’s bankruptcy summons over the lender’s claim was rejected by Mr Justice Liam Kennedy.

The judge found he had not established that the summons was an abuse of process, and was brought for “an ulterior motive”.

Mr Justice Kennedy also said he was not satisfied that Mr McKillen Jnr had raised a real and substantial issue to be tried in plenary proceedings. Establishing such an issue is grounds to set aside a summons, the judge noted.