A nine-week trial should be sufficient time to facilitate the hearing of bitter disputes between the three Web Summit co-founders, a High Court judge has said, despite concerns raised by two of the men’s legal teams that the time frame may be constrictive to their arguments.
The five cases – taken by Daire Hickey and David Kelly against Web Summit chief executive Paddy Cosgrave, and by Mr Cosgrave against Mr Kelly – are due to be heard together at a trial scheduled to begin on March 18th.
Appearing before Mr Justice Michael Twomey on Thursday, Kelley Smith SC, for Mr Hickey, described as “self-serving” Mr Cosgrave’s senior counsel Bernard Dunleavy’s opposition to extending the nine-week trial time, and suggestion that lawyers “cut their cloth” and focus on the best points of their arguments at the hearing.
Ms Smith said that this suggestion “seeks to confine [their] case”, so that her ability to make a significant legal argument about Mr Cosgrave’s alleged “egregious” conduct at the trial is undermined.
She said that her ability to cross-examine witnesses may be curtailed by the present time frames. She argued the current timeline for the trial “isn’t realistic”, given the amount of witness evidence submitted in the proceedings.
Frank Kennedy BL, for Mr Kelly, agreed with Ms Smith, stating that it would “greatly convenience” Mr Cosgrave and Web Summit if their clients were not in a position to advance their case, in the context of an insufficient time frame. Mr Kennedy said he was seeking the time allotted to the hearings to be extended to 12 weeks.
Mr Dunleavy argued that there should be a limit to the amount of court time given over to “a row of this nature”, and noted that the three individuals involved are “extremely wealthy individuals”.
In the actions, Mr Kelly, a 12 per cent shareholder in the tech events firm, and Mr Hickey, who has a 7 per cent stake, are suing Web Summit holding company, Manders Terrace, and 81 per cent shareholder Mr Cosgrave, alleging they are oppressed as minority shareholders.
They are also suing Mr Cosgrave in separate cases alleging a breach of a profit-share agreement, while Mr Cosgrave has a separate case against Mr Kelly for alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
All of the actions are vigorously contested.
Mr Justice Twomey said that nine weeks should be sufficient time for the trial, which is, at its heart, “a dispute between three individuals ... akin to a quasi-partnership dispute”. He gave several reasons for his decision, including that “sometimes”, not all witnesses need to be called as the trial goes on, and that the trial will focus on “one or two issues”.
He also welcomed Mr Cosgrave’s legal team’s acceptance of an invitation from Mr Hickey’s lawyers to enter mediation before the trial commences. The judge said that mediation can potentially settle proceedings whole, but it can also narrow the issues in dispute before trial.
The court heard that both parties agreed that for the mediation to be meaningful, Mr Kelly should also be involved. He is yet to take a conclusive position on mediation, Mr Kennedy said.
The judge said that it should be possible to find suitable mediators operating within this jurisdiction after Ms Smith earlier raised Mr Cosgrave’s solicitor’s wish to appoint mediators “absolutely divorced” from the case.
Ms Smith described as “peculiar” their suggestion that no legal professional in Ireland would be a suitable candidate to mediate between the parties, noting that it was “somewhat unusual” to source a mediator from another jurisdiction.
The judge adjourned the case until the end of the month.
