A business partnership involving broadcaster Gay Byrne has settled its dispute with a financial fund over loan repayments in relation to an investment property worth an estimated €13.5 million in central Dublin. No details of the settlement were disclosed.

The Firstwood Partnership had brought proceedings against the Launceston Property Finance concerning a property containing a block of offices, retail units and car park at St Andrew’s Lane in Dublin 2.

The fund in 2014 acquired a loan which the partnership had taken out in 2000 with Anglo Irish Bank to acquire the property. The loan is due to expire in 2020.

The court previously heard the property had been valued at €13.55 million in 2014 with approximately €6.7 million outstanding on the loan.

The partnership comprises Gay Byrne, senior counsel Anthony Kidney, two solicitors — Eric Brunker, now retired, and Stephen Hamilton – and Dermot Murphy of Clonskeagh Motors.

The matter was mentioned on Monday to Mr Justice Brian McGovern at the Commercial Court. Rossa Fanning SC, for the partnership, said the matter had been settled and could be adjourned to a date in October for mention only.

The partnership sued Launceston in September 2016, after the fund issued a demand for full repayment of the €6.7 million outstanding on the loan and appointed a receiver.

The fund also informed the partnership that failure to remit all rental income to it within 28 days would be considered an event of default, it was claimed.

The partnership argued the fund “contrived“ a default in 2016 on a fully-performing 20-year loan made to the partnership.

The partnership claimed there was no default on the loan and the fund was not at risk of not getting its money and previously secured injunctions restraining the receiver dealing with the property.

It also got orders, pending the outcome of the action, allowing it to continue servicing the loan on terms agreed with Anglo, including an amoritisation schedule for repayments.

The fund’s lawyers, in opposing the injunctions, argued the case appeared to be about the investors not wishing to be forced to sell the investment property three years earlier than they wished. A prior course of dealings with Anglo did not mean the fund is not entitled to rely on the loan security documents, it argued.