Investment firm settles dispute with Paddy McKillen jnr over loan guarantee

AHG Properties Unlimited Company had sought summary judgment for €1.19m

The Four Courts. A dispute between an investment finance company and businessman Paddy McKillen jnr over a guarantee on loans has been resolved, the Commercial Court has heard.
The Four Courts. A dispute between an investment finance company and businessman Paddy McKillen jnr over a guarantee on loans has been resolved, the Commercial Court has heard.

A dispute between an investment finance company and businessman Paddy McKillen jnr over a guarantee on loans has been resolved, the Commercial Court has heard.

AHG Properties Unlimited Company had sought summary judgment for €1.19 million against Mr McKillen jnr over the guarantee on loans to buy a property in England for development as a 155-bed hotel and 1,500 capacity venue.

Mr McKillen jnr is a co-founder of Ireland’s largest hospitality group, Press Up, and son of well-known developer Paddy McKillen snr.

The case first came before the Commercial Court last month when Mr Justice Denis McDonald granted a two-week adjournment at the request of Mr McKillen jnr’s side.

READ MORE

When it returned on Monday, barrister Ross Aylward, for AHG, said the time had “borne fruit” and he was glad to say the case had been compromised.

He asked for the case to still be formally admitted to the commercial list and adjourned to this Thursday. The judge acceded to this request.

In its proceedings, AHG claimed Mr McKillen jnr had provided a personal guarantee, limited to €1 million plus interest, on loans totalling €10 million to buy The Central Hall and adjoining buildings in Corporation Street/Ryder Street, Birmingham. The plan was to redevelop it as a 155-bed “Dean” hotel with a 1,500 capacity event venue.

The loans were made to Creative Cedar Ltd, a UK company which Mr McKillen jnr is a director of and which is also part of the Press Up Group,

AHG said it always understood the loan facility was principally to buy the Birmingham property and that it would be subsequently refinanced by development finance from a separate lender.

However, difficulties arose about making repayment on the final date and efforts by the defendant to raise refinancing were not successful, AHG said.