Court orders developer to provide €400,000 security for costs in Burlington Plaza dispute
A development company has been ordered to provide €400,000 security for legal costs should it lose a High Court action over the sale of a 25% interest in the Burlington Plaza commercial building on Dublin's Burlington Road.
The 25% interest was sold by Lington Developments Ltd to Davy Target Investment plc (DTI) for €51m in 2017.
Coolbrook Developments, which was a 75% owner of the property and had offered in excess of €49m, claims the sale was in breach of an owners' agreement.
Coolbrook brought proceedings seeking to have the sale rescinded.
It claimed against Lington, among other things, that Lington was in breach of the owners' agreement requiring any sale to be to an "arm's length third party".
Coolbrook says DTI was a connected entity to Lington. It is also claimed Lington failed to allow Coolbrook participate further it the sale process in accordance with the owners' agreement or to market the property properly or at all.
Against DTI, Coolbrook claims it unlawfully combined or conspired with Lington to prevent it from acquiring the 25% interest.
Lington and DTI deny the claims.
Lington and DTI then asked the High Court to direct Coolbrook to provide security for the costs of its action.
Coolbrook offered, should such an order be made, to lodge €250,000 in an escrow account pending determination of proceedings.
Lington and DTI, who claim Coolbrook will not be in a position to pay their costs if unsuccessful, argued the court has discretion to direct full security. The court was not bound by any rule or practice that one-third of total costs be lodged, which Coolbrook argued should be the case, the defendants argued.
Mr Justice David Barniville ordered that security for costs in the amount of €400,828 should be provided by Coolbrook. A stay is placed on its action until the money is provided.
The judge said it was unclear where the €250,000 sum offered by Coolbrook came from The evidence was that Coolbrook would be unable to provide that sum from its own resources and the company had chosen not to disclose the source of those funds.
That sum would anyway be insufficient to provide security for the costs of the Lington and DTI, he said.
