IT IS believed a settlement has been reached in a legal action brought against a district judge and his son over their alleged failure to honour agreements to buy 20 apartments in Dublin for sums totalling some €7.2 million.
The action against District Judge Cormac Dunne and his son Gavin was admitted to the Commercial Court earlier this week by Mr Justice Peter Kelly on the application of P Elliott Company Ltd, of Century Business Park, Dublin Road, Co Cavan, and its directors, Mark, Darragh and Noel Elliott jnr.
The action was brought over the alleged failure of Cormac Dunne, with an address at Latt, Cavan, Co Cavan, and his son Gavin, Lansdowne Manor, Swellan Lower, Co Cavan, to honour agreements of January 2007 to purchase 10 apartments each, for sums of some €3.6 million each, at a development at Carrington Park, Northwood, Santry.
The Elliotts were seeking orders requiring specific performance of alleged agreements, damages in addition to or in lieu of specific performance or at common law, and damages for breach of contract.
Solicitors for the defendants had last December written to solicitors for the Elliotts contending their clients were not under any obligation to purchase all or any of the apartments. The letter also stated that despite the efforts of Mark Elliott and Cormac Dunne to raise the borrowing required, it was “now clear that the borrowing required is not, and will not be, available”.
Mr Justice Kelly had directed the Elliotts to deliver a statement of claim by April 6th with a defence to be supplied two weeks after that, by April 20th. The case was due before the court for further directions on May 11th next.
However, it is believed that, following talks between the sides, they have resolved their differences and will announce a settlement to the court within days.
In an affidavit in the proceedings, Mark Elliott, of Abington, Malahide, Co Dublin, said Cormac Dunne is “a former practising solicitor and a businessman” and had purchased the apartments as “a business investment”. He said Mr Dunne is involved “in many business dealings with the Elliott family, ranging from property developments to their purchase of other apartments” built by the Elliott company.
Mr Elliott said the purchase of the Santry apartments was “totally separate” from the other dealings. He added that the delay in bringing the action arose from the hope, “particularly in the context of discussions relating to other business dealings with Cormac Dunne” which were ongoing, that the dispute could be resolved. “However, that has not proved to be the case,” he said.
In court this week, Paul Sreenan SC, for the Elliotts, said the agreements of January 2007 with Cormac Dunne and Gavin Dunne provided for them to each pay €3.6 million for the apartments. Cormac Dunne had paid a deposit of €100,000 while his son paid €90,000. In January 2008, Cormac Dunne had indicated he was not completing the purchase.
The Elliotts were claiming that, at a meeting between Cormac Dunne and Mark Elliott at the Berkeley Court Hotel in Dublin in July 2008, Cormac Dunne had agreed, on behalf of himself and his son, to unconditionally close the sale of 12 of the 20 apartments within a reasonable period.
The Elliotts claim the Dunnes were not released from the agreement for 20 apartments until the July 2008 agreement was complete, which was not done. The Elliotts had served completion notices on December 4th, 2008, in relation to the 20 apartments.
On December 22nd, 2008, solicitors for the defendants wrote stating their clients were not obliged to purchase any or all of the apartments, sought to rely on the July 2008 meeting and asked for return of the deposits. The defendants had contended that the July 2008 agreement was dependent on the ability to raise the required finance.
Michael Cush SC, for the defendants, said his side was not consenting to the action being admitted to the Commercial Court as it did not display the urgency required for Commercial Court proceedings. The agreement at the meeting in July 2008 between Mark Elliott and Cormac Dunne to buy 12 apartments was conditional on getting financing, he added.
Mr Justice Kelly said the delay could not be criticised in the context of the dealings between the sides and admitted the action to the Commercial Court.
