- May 25, 2009
Wonder if this has anything to do with his attempts to reform FF...
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said, while ACC was entitled to the possession orders against Fairlee Properties Ltd over non-payment of a 1.5 million debt, he would not make such orders until various persons and companies said to be in occupation of the properties were notified and given an opportunity to be heard.
In those circumstances, the judge deferred the proceedings to later this month.
Receiver Kieran Wallace is seeking orders for possession of properties located at 158 to 163 Richmond Road, Fairview, Dublin 3 and Unit 6, Tivoli Centre, Richmond Road Industrial Estate, Dublin.
Mr Beades had argued ACC had no authority to appoint Mr Wallace as receiver on grounds the bank had about June 2009 internally written off most of Fairlees liabilities to it. He also claimed he was entitled to damages, including exemplary damages, against the bank over appointment of the receiver.
Mr Beades also argued today he was not getting justice because of how the case was being conducted and said he intended to apply to the Supreme Court.
Ouch. This could really blow up in his face. Interesting as well that he feels entitled to exemplary damages because a receiver was appointed to his company's property even though they hadn't paid a penny of the money they owed the bank.The judge said there was a complex background to the proceedings dating back to a High Court order of February 2009 under which, by consent, it was ordered ACC should recover some 1.5 million against Fairlee and Mr Beades. Execution of that judgment was stayed until June 30th last with no interest to apply until July 1st.
Mr Beades accepted none of that money had been paid by him or Fairlee and ACC had appointed Mr Wallace as receiver, the judge said. That appointment was unsuccessfully challenged in proceedings before Mr Justice Brian McGovern last July when Mr Beades and Fairlee were also directed to provide names of the tenants of the properties.
While a list was provided, it was only now the tenants had been clarified, the judge said. It was remarkable a lot of the tenants were companies, some of which were dissolved, of which Mr Beades was a director or were apparently there with the leave of Mr Beades or his companies, he added.