Developer Hugh Kavanagh has withdrawn his application that could have seen his brother Greg committed to prison for alleged contempt of court.
However, the overall legal battle between the businessmen brothers remains, with Hugh seeking various injunctions against Greg and several related companies.
The hearing of that application, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said on Tuesday, is likely to occur in January.
Hugh Kavanagh and Simlur Ltd, a company of which Hugh Kavanagh is owner and sole director, has brought High Court proceedings against Greg Kavanagh and various companies, including Structured Marshalled Investments Ltd (SMIL) which is the group’s holding company, and New Generation Homes Ltd and Isotonic Hotel Ltd.
That case was first brought before the courts in 2020 over alleged attempts to remove Hugh Kavanagh both as a director of 19 companies without notice, and from his executive role from the property and construction business the brothers had operated.
That action was settled in May 2020.
However, in recent weeks lawyers for Bernard, otherwise known as Hugh, Kavanagh and Simlur, returned before the court seeking to have the action re-entered over the defendants’ alleged failure to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement.
The plaintiffs’ claims include that assets are being stripped and unsanctioned payments are being made from some of the companies the subject of the agreement
It is also claimed that the breaches of the agreement are “fundamental.”
In his action Hugh Kavanagh seeks various orders including an injunction, including ones restraining the creation of new security over shares and assets of the group, or the sale allotment of any shares in the group with providing the plaintiff with 14 days’ notice in advance.
Arising out of the alleged breach of the agreement Hugh had also sought an order seeking to have his brother attached or brought before the court and potentially committed to prison for alleged contempt of court.
In reply Greg Kavanagh rejects all of the claims of wrongdoing against him, and has described the allegations made against him as being outrageous and ill founded.
In recent weeks both sides have exchanged sworn statements in the proceedings, denying allegations and counter-allegations against the other.
When the matter returned before Mr Justice Sanfey on Tuesday, Paul McGarry SC, for Hugh Kavanagh, said his client was no longer seeking an order for Greg Kavanagh’s attachment and committal..
That aspect of the claim was “a distraction” from the principal issues at play between the parties.
Mr McGarry, appearing with Jack Tchrakian, instructed by Adam McCarthy of Robert Emmet Bourke solicitors, said while that aspect of the claim was no longer proceeding, his side was maintaining many serious allegations against the defendants..
In reply, Martin Hayden SC, appearing with James Hayden, instructed by Phil Reynor of Eversheds Sutherland solicitors for the defendants, welcomed the withdrawal of the attachment and committal motion.
When the matter had previously been before the court, counsel been strongly critical that particular motion.
The withdrawal of that aspect of the claim had been indicated to his client in the latest sworn statement furnished to his client by the plaintiffs.
Counsel said his side also welcomed the apparent withdrawal of a claim by Hugh Kavanagh that the defendant had not abided with an agreement to keep up repayments on a vehicle used by the plaintiff.
There had been a difference of about 90 cent in relation to the repayments, counsel added.
Mr Justice Sanfey, after putting a further timetable in place for the exchange of affidavits, adjourned the proceedings. The judge noted that both sides wanted the matter heard as soon as possible.
He said the injunction application should be heard in January when the new legal term commences.
In 2020 the court heard that after working together for some 17 years, and having built up a successful business, relations between the brothers deteriorated. Hugh Kavanagh claims he was removed as a director of 19 of the 20 defendant companies but had not been removed as a director of one defendant firm, Bezzu Corporation Ltd.
The claims were denied, and following out-of-court talks between the parties the High Court was informed the matter had been settled.
