The founder of the Master Meats group of companies, Mr Paschal Phelan, is seeking judgment for almost £20 million (€25.39 million) against his former partner, Mr Zakaria el Taher, the High Court was told yesterday.

Mr Justice Murphy was asked by counsel for Mr Taher yesterday to grant a lengthy adjournment of the hearing of the motion which was to have been heard last Tuesday but was adjourned for a week to February 19th. It will now be heard on February 21st.

Mr Brian Dempsey SC, for Mr Taher, argued his client was very unwell and under great stress as a result of the legal proceedings involving himself, Mr Phelan and Mr Larry Goodman (arising from what Mr Phelan has alleged was a conspiracy between Mr Goodman, Mr Taher and others to force Mr Phelan out of Master Meats in 1987).

The settlement of much of those proceedings which was reached between Mr Goodman and Mr Phelan earlier this week had come very suddenly and unexpectedly and added to the stress, counsel said.

Mr Dempsey also produced a medical report stating Mr Taher was suffering from a light stroke and other problems and should be shielded from business and other interruptions for three weeks.

He added the matters raised in the motion were very complex. Mr Brian O'Moore SC, for Mr Phelan, and Mr Dermot Gleeson SC, for Mr Goodman, against whom Mr Taher is seeking indemnity, strongly objected to any further adjournment of the hearing of the motion.

Both argued that, in the 10 months of the hearing of the legal actions involving the three men and others, Mr Taher's side had failed on several occasions to meet deadlines for the production of documents which had delayed the hearing of the actions.

Mr O'Moore argued there was nothing new in the motion which required fresh instructions from Mr Taher.

Mr Gleeson said the matters raised had been "drummed into" all the sides for 10 months. Both counsel raised concerns about what was described as "inconsistencies" in the medical evidence relating to Mr Taher.

After considering the matter, the judge said there were continuing problems with Mr Taher's health and medical reports had surfaced on some occasions at critical stages in the litigation.

It also seemed to him that a motion of this nature did not require evidence although, he added, that was a matter for counsel to decide.

He had to take into account the "almost endemic" delays that had affected the case.

The court was sympathetic with the ill-health of any parties, he said.

While not totally convinced of the time when Mr Taher's indisposition arose, he must have regard to a medical report of February 13th which estimated Mr Taher would be indisposed for 21 days.

This seemed at variance with a letter from Mr Taher's solicitor which stated Mr Taher would be indisposed from February 10th to 20th.

In the circumstances, he would adjourn the matter to a date after February 20th. He fixed February 21st.