Property developer Greg Kavanagh has asked the High Court for orders restraining the purported sale of a Dublin property worth more than €2 million.
The action relates to a property called Wynnstay House, in Clonskeagh, Co Dublin, which, the court heard, is derelict and earmarked for the development of residential units.
Mr Kavanagh claims he has an agreement in place, arising out of the settlement of a legal dispute, allowing a company called Greg Kavanagh Dev Co Ltd, of which he is a director, to buy the property from its owner.
However, Mr Kavanagh and the firm say it appears the agreement to buy the property is being reneged on. It is also alleged that the parties he entered into an agreement with have placed the property on the market for €2.25 million and that it may be sold unless stopped by the court.
File being prepared for DPP over insider trading
Christmas tech for kids: great gift ideas with safety features for parental peace of mind
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
Mr Kavanagh and Greg Kavanagh Dev Co Limited are seeking the orders against Anne O’Neill and Ballycrag Developments Limited, which is in receivership.
It is claimed that Arklow-based Ballycrag is the registered owner of the property and Ms O’Neill, of Mount Pleasant Square, Dublin, holds a charge over the property.
Mr Kavanagh claims Ms O’Neill is the spouse of Robert Walsh who has been involved in several property projects with Mr Kavanagh.
In each of those projects Mr Kavanagh, of Bath Avenue, Dublin, alleges Mr Walsh has invested money for those projects through Ms O’Neill, who acts as her husband’s agent or proxy in the execution of formal documents.
Mr Kavanagh also says it is his understanding that Mr Walsh regularly uses his spouse to formerly enter into property transactions on his behalf.
The injunction application came before Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy on Friday.
The judge, while only the plaintiffs were represented, granted the plaintiffs permission to serve notice of the injunction application on the defendants.
The judge made the matter returnable to next week’s sitting of the court.
The court heard that as part of the settlement of High Court proceedings between Ms O’Neill and Mr Kavanagh over a loan agreement last January, it was agreed that Mr Kavanagh and his company would purchase Wynnstay House.
Under that agreement, it is alleged, Mr Kavanagh would make three payments totalling €2.4 million to Ms O’Neill. Of that amount, €2 million was the consideration for the sale of the Wynnstay property, he claims.
Mr Kavanagh and his company, who are represented by Martin Hayden SC, appearing with James Hayden BL instructed by Philip Reynor of Eversheds Sutherland solicitors, say that the plaintiffs have entered into a valid contract for sale in respect of the property.
Counsel said the first payment of €200,000 agreed under the settlement deal was made in March.
The next tranche of €1.8 million was to be paid to the defendants within eight months of the settlement agreement reached in mid-January.
However, Mr Kavanagh says that following the payment of the €200,000, which he claims is a deposit on the property, difficulties arose between the parties.
Counsel said his clients reject claims by the defendants’ lawyers that Mr Kavanagh was trying to evade his obligations under the settlement agreement. His clients reject claims that the payment was late and after a date specified in the settlement agreement.
Counsel said the plaintiffs fear the deal to buy the property has been reneged on and said his clients discovered following a conversation with a real estate company earlier this month that the property is on the market and that it could be sold within a matter of days.
As a result, the plaintiffs seek various orders against the defendants, including an injunction restraining the defendants from selling the property. If granted this would remain in place pending the outcome of the dispute.
The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the defendants to specifically perform the alleged settlement agreement entered into earlier this year.
The plaintiffs further seek a declaration from the court that the €200,000 already paid constitutes a deposit or part payment under the contract for sale defined in the settlement agreement.