Businessman Greg Kavanagh says that claims made against him by his brother Hugh over the alleged breakdown of a settlement agreement they entered into three years ago are "outrageous" "belied with malice" and are "ill founded".
The claims are made in reply to an action taken by Hugh Kavanagh and Simlur Ltd, a company of which Hugh Kavanagh is owner and sole director, in 2020 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.
The claim centres around alleged attempts to remove Hugh Kavanagh as a director of 19 companies without notice and to remove him from his executive role from the property and construction business they had operated for many years.
The claims were denied, and that case was settled in May 2020.
However, last week lawyers for Bernard otherwise known as Hugh Kavanagh and Simular asked the court to re-enter the action over the defendants' alleged failure to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement.
It is claimed that assets are being stripped, and unsanctioned payments are being made from some of the companies the subject of the agreement.
When the matter returned before the Court on Wednesday Martin Hayden SC, appearing with James Hayden Bl instructed by Phil Reynor of Eversheds Sutherland solicitors for Greg Kavanagh said that his client rejects all the claims made by his brother, which counsel said are "outrageous".
Counsel said that his client also wants the proceedings, where orders seeking the defendant's attachment and possible committal to prison are sought, heard and determined by the courts as soon as possible.
Counsel said that this "groundless" claim in particular, which received a lot of media coverage, had implications for his client's reputation.
Counsel said that despite the serious nature of the attachment and committal application, it is their case that Greg Kavanagh was not served with the documents in the motion.
His client had furnished a full reply to the claims being made by his brother, which Greg Kavanagh wants struck out by the court.
The defendants say that any claim that he breached the agreements are wrong and that the claims against him are "spurious and speculative." malicious and ill-founded.
Counsel also said that Hugh Kavanagh has brought numerous legal claims, using four different sets of solicitors, against Greg Kavanagh.
The plaintiffs, represented by Paul McGarry SC Jack Tchrakian Bl, instructed by Adam McCarthy of Robert Emmet Bourke solicitors seeks various reliefs including a declaration that his brother and the other defendants have breached and not complied with the settlement agreement.
Hugh Kavanagh also seeks orders 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.
On Wednesday Mr McGarry said his clients agree that the matter should be heard as soon as possible, but wanted time to consider Greg Kavanagh's reply to the serious issues raised by the plaintiffs.
Mr Justice Sanfey noted the seriousness of the allegations for both sides and the parties desire to have the matter heard quickly, and put a timetable in place for the exchange of documents.
However the judge warned the parties that he was "not a magician" and could not guarantee that the matter will be heard before the end of the current legal term..
The court may not be able to have the dispute heard as soon as the parties want as the bulk of hearing dates in chancery division of the High Court between now and Christmas have been allotted.
The matter was adjourned for two weeks to allow the plaintiffs consider Greg Kavanagh's reply.
In 2020 the court heard that after working together for some 17 years, and had built up a successful business before relations between the brothers deteriorated.
Hugh Kavanagh claimed he had been 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.
