Finlay Geoghegan J

Funds in Irish account not held for company liquidated in Caribbean.

Fairfield Sentry Ltd v. Citco Bank Nederland NV [2012] IEHC 81
(High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J, 28 February 2012)

High Court: a) grants declaration that an order of the High Court of Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court appointing a liquidator to the plaintiff company was entitled to recognition in Ireland; b) refuses to grant declaration that an order of conservatory garnishment in the Netherlands was entitled to recognition in Ireland; and c) refuses a decoration that funds held by a defendant in an Irish account were held to the order of the liquidator of the plaintiff company.

Liquidation of company – recognition of overseas liquidation – overseas orders of conservatory garnishment – international litigation (Madoff) – Commercial Court – funds held in Dublin account – law relating to foreign insolvencies – entitlements in More

Return of wrongfully-removed 15-year-old would have placed her in intolerable situation.

I P v. T P [2012] IEHC 31
(High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J, 7 February 2012)

High Court refuses application to return 15-year-old to Poland under Hague Convention.

Child abduction – Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 – Child Abduction and Enforcement of Custody Orders Act, 1991 – Council Regulation (EU) 2201/2003 – application to return 15-year-old child to More

Property company entitled to challenge NAMA’s decision to enforce security and appoint receivers.

Treasury Holdings v. National Asset Management Agency [2012] IEHC 66
(High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J, 22 March 2012)

High Court grants borrower leave to seek judicial review of decision by statutory asset management agency to enforce security and appoint receivers.

Judicial review – application for leave – ss 182 and 193, National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 – decision of agency (NAMA) to enforce securities held for multiple loans by property company – whether substantial grounds for More

High Court grants recognition of Northern Irish child care orders.

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust v. S [2011] IEHC 468
(High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J, 16 December 2011)

High Court grants recognition of care order and recovery order made in Northern Ireland in respect of child. (Full text.)

Recognition and enforcement of foreign orders – orders of Northern Irish High Court – Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 – care order of child – recovery order – application by father for adjournment – objections made by father – whether it More

€5.5m award for fraudulent misrepresentation, and transfer of lands to wife declared void.

Keegan Quarries Ltd v. McGuinness [2011] IEHC 453
(High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J, 9 December 2011)

High Court grants judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of €5.5 million for fraudulent misrepresentation, together with an order declaring void a transfer of property between defendants. (Full text.)

Contract law – fraudulent / negligent misrepresentation – breach of warranty – transfer of lands – s. 74 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 – whether transfer void – contract for sale of quarry – contract conditional on More

In the matter of Mr Binman – HC – Company law, examinership, prospect of survival

In the matter of Mr Binman [2011] IEHC 401
(High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J, 2 November 2011)

High Court refuses petition for appointment of examiner to company, on grounds that there was no objective prospect of the company’s survival as a going concern. (Full text.)

Company law – examinership – prospect of survival as a going concern – whether protection of employment a relevant consideration – petition opposed by creditor bank – objective appraisal of evidence of survival – More

Danish Polish Telecommunication Group v. Telekomunikacja Polska – HC – Arbitration, enforcement of international award, adjournment, security for costs

Danish Polish Telecommunication Group I/S v. Telekomunikacja Polska SA [2011] IEHC 369 (6 October 2011)

High Court (Finlay Geoghegan J): a) grants adjournment of application for recognition and enforcement of international arbitration award, pending the outcome of Austrian action to set aside award; and b) orders security for costs in the sum of €1.5 million. (Full text.)

Arbitration – recognition and enforcement of international award – Article 35(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law – ss 8 and 23 of the Arbitration Act 2010 – award of over €268 million – arbitration in Vienna subject to challenge in Austrian courts – application for adjournment of Irish action – entitlement of court to adjourn decision on enforcement as distinct from placing a stay on decision already reached – Article 36(2) of Model Law – whether necessary for Irish court to determine questions of Austrian law – whether grounds for contending that Austrian proceedings may succeed in having award set aside – whether Irish court had jurisdiction to give leave to enforce part of award over which there was, allegedly, no contest – security for costs in the event of an adjournment -

Brostrom Tankers AB v. Factorias Vulcano SA [2004] 2 I.R. 191
Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki and Others (30th May, 2003) Case 509
Ipco (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. [2009] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 611
Ipco (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 611
Soleh Boneh International Ltd v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corp [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 208 at 212

Noreside Construction v. Irish Asphalt – HC – Contract, variation, implied terms

Noreside Construction Ltd v. Irish Asphalt Ltd [2011] IEHC 364 (4 October 2011)

High Court (Finlay Geoghegan J) finds: a) that a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant did not include terms and conditions in purchase order or other document; b) that there was no implied limitation on the defendant’s liability for defective products; and c) that there was an implied condition of merchantable quality under the sale of goods legislation. (Full text.)

Contract law – issue arising in modular trial – Commercial Court – building contract – incorporation of terms into contract by signature, reasonable notice or course of dealing – whether delivery documents had the effect of varying the initial contract – whether signatories of delivery dockets had authority to negotiate or agree any contractual terms – incorporation of terms into contract by custom – s. 14(2), Sale of Goods Act 1893, as inserted by s. 10, Act of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 – merchantable quality – implied term.

Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Company [1951] 1 K.B. 805
McMeel, ‘Construction of Contracts’ (2nd Ed.) Oxford University Press 2011, at paragraph 15.53
L’Estrange v. Graucob [1934] 2 K.B. 394
Grogan v. Robin Meredith Plant Hire [1996] C.L.C 1127
Bahamas Oil Refining Co v Kristiansands Tankrederie A/S (‘The Polyduke’) [1978] 1 LI Rep 211
Continental Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd. v. Trunk Taylor Company Ltd. [1985] S.C. 163
Circle Freight v. Medeast [1988] 2 Lloyd’s 427
Vitol S.A. v. Phibro Energy AG, the Maturaki [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Report 84
O’Reilly v. Irish Press [1937] 71 ILTR 194
McCarthy v. Health Service Executive [2010] IEHC 75
James Elliott Construction Limited v. Irish Asphalt Limited [2011] IEHC 269

A O K v. M K – HC – Custody of child, parents in different jurisdictions

A O K v. M K [2005] IEHC 360 (9 September 2011)

High Court (Finlay Geoghegan J) grants joint custody of child to parents living in different jurisdictions, and makes further orders as to the future education and residence of the child. (Full text.)

Family law – custody of child – Article 11(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 – District Court order – taking of child to other jurisdiction – failure of Polish authorities to order return of child pursuant to Hague Convention – hearing on custody issues – best interests of welfare of child – expressed wishes of child in relation to country of residence – evidence of expert.

O.S. v. O.S. [1976] 110 ILTR at 57
E.M. v. A.M. (Unreported, High Court, 16th June, 1992)
Re A.H.A. v. M.B. [2008] 1 FLR 289
M. v. T. [2010] 2 FLR 1685
D. v. N. [2011] EWHC 471(FAM)
U.V. v. V.U. (Unreported, 15th April, 2011)
C.A. v. C.A. (otherwise C. McC) [2010] 2 I.R. 162
C-211/10 PPU, Povse

AIB v. Galvin Developments – HC – Contract, loan agreements, interest

AIB v. Galvin Developments (Killarney) Ltd [2011] IEHC 314 (29 July 2011)

High Court (Finlay Geoghegan J) finds, inter alia, that: i) the plaintiff was entitled to demand repayment of loans on the relevant dates of demand; ii) that the first named defendant was liable only for 50% of the amount drawn down; iii) that three other defendants were liable for 50% of the amount drawn down; and iv) that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover surcharge interest. (Full text.)

Contract law – guarantee – claim for judgment – loan agreements – guarantees – entitlement of bank to demand repayment on dates of letters of demand – entitlement to recover surcharge interest – whether guarantee restricted in nature or amount – nature of available relief – collateral contracts.

Sweeney v. Mulcahy [1993] ILRM 289
Leo Laboratories Ltd. v. Crompton B.V. [2005] 2 I.R. 225
Analog Devices B.V. v. Zurich Insurance [2005] 1 I.R. 274
I.C.S. v. West Bromwich B.S. [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896
Mannai Ltd. v. Eagle Star Ass. Co. Ltd. [1997] A.C. 749
Antaios Compania S.A. v. Salen A.B. [1985] A.C. 191
Industrial Steel Plant Ltd. v. Smith [1980] 1 N.Z.L.R. 545

Subscribe

Get every new post on this site delivered to your Inbox.

Join other subscriberss: