Petition to wind up Dunnes Stores
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Like most people who refuse to pay bills, I would feel its an attempt to drag it out indeffinatly in the hope that a settlement might be reached for less. I would feel in this case they did not believe NAMA would act in the way they have by lodging the winding up order. A bit of call their bluff at its simplest.
I dont believe there can be any other reason as having gone through the arbitration process (the result of which has more power than most lower court awards due to its international dimension) they will have already fully exausted their arguements which were clearly not accepted as an arguement for payment.
Always keep in mind as Justice Kelly will be well aware of, we could all employ tens of thousand of people with €20million of someone elses money, it dosnt make it right. If Dunnes do not pay, if they cant pay, they are insolvent and therefore the jobs are gone in any event as clearly the company cannot continue.
That was my take on this case too. Heffernan thought she'd be able to do a deal with NAMA. And as a taxpayer I certainly hope NAMA will not be doing any deal with a company that can well afford pay for what they signed up for.
What a suprise
(as reported by RTE.ie)
A petition to wind up Dunnes Stores over a €21.6m debt has been withdrawn after the Commercial Court heard that the money was paid in full yesterday.
Brian O'Moore SC for Dunnes Stores said that its earlier reasons for non-payment were genuinely held and no discourtesy to the court was intended.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said that the earlier refusal to settle the judgement could have been viewed as a challenge to the authority of the court even if it was not intended.
Maurice Collins SC for Holtglen ltd said he was not seeking costs but Mr Justice Kelly said he would have granted them if an order was sought.
The summary judgment, granted last March by Mr Justice Peter Kelly, related to the retail group's alleged failure to settle a debt for building works at a shopping centre in Kilkenny.
Holtglen built a shopping centre in Kilkenny in which Dunnes agreed to be the anchor tenant.
The Ferrybank shopping centre was completed in 2009 but Holtglen later became insolvent and its Bank of Ireland loans were transferred to National Asset Management Ltd (NALM), a company of the National Asset Management Agency.
(as reported by RTE.ie)
A petition to wind up Dunnes Stores over a €21.6m debt has been withdrawn after the Commercial Court heard that the money was paid in full yesterday.
Brian O'Moore SC for Dunnes Stores said that its earlier reasons for non-payment were genuinely held and no discourtesy to the court was intended.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said that the earlier refusal to settle the judgement could have been viewed as a challenge to the authority of the court even if it was not intended.
Maurice Collins SC for Holtglen ltd said he was not seeking costs but Mr Justice Kelly said he would have granted them if an order was sought.
The summary judgment, granted last March by Mr Justice Peter Kelly, related to the retail group's alleged failure to settle a debt for building works at a shopping centre in Kilkenny.
Holtglen built a shopping centre in Kilkenny in which Dunnes agreed to be the anchor tenant.
The Ferrybank shopping centre was completed in 2009 but Holtglen later became insolvent and its Bank of Ireland loans were transferred to National Asset Management Ltd (NALM), a company of the National Asset Management Agency.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,160
I presume that the Courts Service don't charge for hearing a case?
Maybe they should do so?
Maybe, in exceptional cases, where the judge feels that the case or defence was without merit, the plaintiff or defendant should pay.
Brendan
Maybe they should do so?
Maybe, in exceptional cases, where the judge feels that the case or defence was without merit, the plaintiff or defendant should pay.
Brendan
Completely agree, I am surprised no application for costs made as whatever about the courts service, they have been chasing payment on this issue for years and I am sure they have expended costs since the original court award at the start of the year. But sure its only the taxpayer footing the bill anyway..........
I am not an accountant but I am also sure the interest Dunnes have earned on such a sum for the period would be substantial?
I am not an accountant but I am also sure the interest Dunnes have earned on such a sum for the period would be substantial?
Last edited:
Commons sense prevails as I thought it would. Good lawyers who drew up that contact with Dunnes. Heffernan must have been fuming at her own lawyers for having no get out clause, no doubt on her instructions. No pity for someone who is so so experienced in this line of business.
Maybe I don't understand what just happened but can anyone be held legally liable for not protecting the interests of the taxpayer ? How can it be that somebody somewhere working for the taxpayer decided to basically ''gift'' Dunnes the sum amounting to legal costs ? Hence treating that money as their own money to do with as they please and not as ours they hold in trust.
Surely the state should not volunteer to pay the voluntarily chosen expenses of cash rich multimillionaires ? Can the same judge tear up a few parking tickets for me please ? Jail the lot of them for this humbug (unless I misunderstood something)
Surely the state should not volunteer to pay the voluntarily chosen expenses of cash rich multimillionaires ? Can the same judge tear up a few parking tickets for me please ? Jail the lot of them for this humbug (unless I misunderstood something)