Repossession sought of developer Hugh Kavanagh's home arising from dispute with brother Greg

Repossession Sought Of Developer Hugh Kavanagh's Home Arising From Dispute With Brother Greg
Developer Hugh Kavanagh says a failure of his brother Greg Kavanagh to comply with a settlement agreement has led to a repossession application for his family home.
Share this article

High Court reporters

Developer Hugh Kavanagh says a failure of his former business partner and brother Greg Kavanagh to comply with a settlement agreement which saw them go their separate ways has led to a repossession application for his family home in Dublin.

Hugh Kavanagh says Greg's failure to transfer the ownership of the Braemor Avenue, Churchtown, home to Hugh's wife Julie has led to receivers being appointed by the bank and an application for repossession, the High Court heard.


The claims were made in the hearing of an application by Hugh seeking an injunction relating to compliance with the terms of their agreement. He also wants the court to re-enter May 2020 settlement of their original legal dispute.


The case first came before the court in 2020 over alleged attempts to remove Hugh (also called Bernard) Kavanagh as a director of 19 companies without notice and remove him from his executive role from the property and construction business the brothers had operated for many years.

Hugh, and his own company Simlur Ltd, launched proceedings against Greg, his (Greg’s) Structured Marshalled Investments Ltd (SMIL) holding company, as well as firms in that group, including New Generation Homes Ltd and Isotonic Hotel Ltd.

Greg denied all claims of wrongdoing.


After the May 2020 court settlement agreement was reached, two further revised agreements were signed between them with the last being in September 2021.

Hugh brought further proceedings in 2023 with an application last November seeking the possible jailing of Greg for non-compliance with a court-approved order relating to the May 2020 agreement.

That application was quickly withdrawn by Hugh who said it was a distraction from his main objective which was to get compliance with the agreement.

On Thursday, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy heard arguments over whether an injunction should be granted pending a full hearing of Hugh’s claim that the May 2020 court approved agreement had been breached.



Among the reliefs sought include restraining the creation of new security over shares and assets of the SMIL group, or the sale allotment of any shares in the group with providing the plaintiff with 14 days notice in advance.

Greg’s side claim the effect of such orders would be to prevent the business from carrying out normal trade and they should not be granted.

Paul McGarry SC, for Hugh, said there was clear evidence of non-compliance with the agreement that included certain payments be made, that there be full disclosure to Hugh of the group companies’ affairs, that impending sales transactions be notified to Hugh on 14 days notice, and that meetings take place between the parties regularly. None of these were ever done, counsel said.

Another relatively crucial provision, relating to the Hugh and Julie Kavanagh Braemor Avenue home, was also not complied with. This was that it be transferred into Julie’s name within a certain timeframe, but this did not happen.


Instead, Greg came up with a refinancing proposal for the mortgage on the house which has resulted in the bank appointing a receiver who has sought possession, counsel said.

Counsel said that Hugh had stated it was his paramount wish that his wife and family stay in the family home but that “nightmare had come to pass” (with the repossession application) which forced him to reconsider his strategy and apply to re-enter the 2020 proceedings.

Martin Hayden SC, for Greg, argued Hugh Kavanagh’s case should be immediately dismissed given the conduct of the plaintiff, particularly in relation to the application which could have led to Greg’s liberty being at stake but which was withdrawn.

Hugh had claimed that assets in the business had been moved since the 2020 agreement but what had happened was that they were moved in the course of business, which Hugh accepted he no longer had an involvement in. Yet nearly four years later, proceedings are brought in relation to this because of what Hugh called “a change of strategy”, counsel said.


The agreement also said payments on Hugh’s Range Rover would be discharged, but he had claimed there was a breach of this and arrears had built up on payments. In fact, counsel said, the arrears were less than a Euro.

Greg had sought to avoid receivers being appointed over Hugh’s home by refinancing the loan on it, but Hugh had refused to allow a valuer (from Greg’s side) to inspect the house, he said.

Hugh had played “fast and loose with the facts”, he said.

The judge said he would give his decision on Friday.

Read More

Message submitting... Thank you for waiting.

Want us to email you top stories each lunch time?

Download our Apps
© 2024, developed by Square1 and powered by