A dispute between a real estate management firm and a company owned by two solicitors over moves by a receiver to sell two properties worth an estimated €1.3 million has been settled, the Commercial Court heard.
Beechpark Avenue Ltd, owned by Eddie O’Connor and Valerie Buckley, principals in O’Connor Buckley Solicitors, own the two houses at Rathdown Road, Phibsborough, in Dublin.
Real estate management firm, Nevada Ltd, which is owned by Phillip and Bridget Dillon, claimed it loaned Beechpark €1 million to refinance Beechpark’s previous borrowings.
The loan was made on the basis of a charge over the properties along with a personal guarantee and indemnity from Mr O’Connor, it was also claimed.
‘Bloodied but not bowed’: Connemara’s Misunderstood Heron food truck announces sudden closure
Leaving Cert student killed after car entered river in Co Tipperary named
Catriona Carey and brother Jack Carey sent forward for trial on company law charges
Protest held as US judge arrested and charged with obstructing immigration operation
There was an alleged default on repayment and last December Nevada appointed a receiver over the properties.
On February 18th, Beechpark brought High Court injunction proceedings against Nevada and Mr Gaynor seeking to prevent them from taking possession of or selling the properties as well as challenging the appointment of the receiver.
Beechpark claimed Nevada had agreed to extend the period of the loan provided monthly repayments of €12,500 were made. Nevada denied the claim.
The case was adjourned on the basis of an undertaking from Nevada and the receiver that they would withdraw the properties from auction.
The hearing of the injunction was due to take place before Mr Justice Mark Sanfey on Thursday when Fintan Hurley BL, for Beechpark, said a settlement agreement had been reached and the terms could be handed into court.
The judge noted that part of the settlement provided that there would be co-operation from the plaintiffs in the sale of the properties.
Gary McCarthy SC, for the defendants, asked that the settlement would be made part of the court file in the event that the proceedings needed to be re-entered.
The judge struck out the case on consent between the parties with liberty to re-enter for the purpose of enforcing the agreed steps for the sale of the properties.
