Demolition company partner asserts non-adherence to termination accord
In Ireland, a partner in a demolition company, Richard Geraghty, has taken legal action against his co-shareholder, Vladimir Balmus, over allegations of non-compliance with a break-up agreement. The High Court has granted an order restraining Balmus from transferring €400,000 and registering Geraghty's shares in the Companies Registration Office, pending a further order.
The court order was granted in response to Geraghty's claims of non-compliance with the break-up agreement, which was reached last May. According to the settlement, Balmus was to buy out Geraghty's shareholding for €400,000. However, Geraghty alleges that Balmus has sought to frustrate and delay the payment.
The money for the buyout was to be held in escrow by Balmus' solicitor pending completion of the sale. But Geraghty claims that Balmus has not released the funds, leading to the court application seeking injunctions to compel Balmus to pay the €400,000 and prevent him from transferring his shares in the company.
This case highlights the role of the Irish High Court in handling commercial and contractual disputes. The Court has the authority to grant injunctions or restraining orders to prevent the transfer of funds if the claimant establishes a legitimate contractual right or interest at risk due to non-compliance.
The process involves filing proceedings in the High Court setting out the alleged breach, seeking an urgent hearing for the injunction to prevent the transfer, and the Court assessing factors such as the validity of the break-up agreement, urgency, balance of convenience, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy. If satisfied, the Court can issue an order restraining the co-shareholder from making the transfer pending final resolution.
Such injunctions are a form of equitable relief to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreversible harm before a full trial or settlement. Enforcement would be by contempt of court if the restraining order is breached.
It is important to note that this case does not appear to depend on landlord-tenant law or the District Court’s enforcement, but rather on the commercial law jurisdiction of the High Court.
The court proceedings continue and will return to court next week. This marks the latest development in a series of court proceedings between Geraghty and Balmus due to a breakdown in their relationship. Geraghty lives in Hollingbourne, Kent, England, but the court proceedings are taking place in Ireland due to the location of the company.
Geraghty has also alleged that "utterly spurious and untrue" allegations were made by parties connected by personal relationships to both men. This adds a complex layer to the ongoing dispute, but the focus remains on the alleged non-compliance with the break-up agreement and the restraining order issued by the High Court.
[1] [https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/31/section/459/enacted/en/html] [2] [https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/31/section/460/enacted/en/html]
- The High Court's decision to grant an order restraining Balmus from transferring €400,000 and registering Geraghty's shares derives from Geraghty's claims of non-compliance with the break-up agreement regarding their business partnership in the demolition company.
- The ongoing court proceedings between Richard Geraghty and Vladimir Balmus, revolving around the alleged non-compliance with their break-up agreement, underscores the importance of the Irish High Court's role in resolving commercial and contractual disputes, particularly when financial matters involving business interests are at stake.
