Fund seeks judgment on two Liffeyside homes

Developer owes up to €2.6m after failing to meet his repayment obligations, it is claimed

Mr Justice Brian McGovern admitted Lauceston Property Finance’s case seeking summary judgment against Mr David Wright to the Commercial Court. Photograph: Bryan O’Brien
Mr Justice Brian McGovern admitted Lauceston Property Finance’s case seeking summary judgment against Mr David Wright to the Commercial Court. Photograph: Bryan O’Brien

A fund is seeking judgment for €2.6 million against the developer of two luxury Liffeyside homes in Dublin. The properties at 1A and 1B “Swan Lake”, Chapelizod Road, Islandbridge, were developed by David Wright, whose address is 1B.

They have been valued by a receiver at between €1.65 million and €2.4 million. It is claimed Anglo Irish Bank, before it was nationalised as Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), loaned Mr Wright €2.25 million in 2008 to renew existing facilities to acquire the land and build the two homes.

Security was the 0.1 acre site of the homes along with another property in Summercove, Rosslare, Co Wexford.

IBRC, which went into special liquidation in 2013, sold the loan to Lauceston Property Finance, of Haddington Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin. Lauceston demanded repayment last January of the full loan, which stood at €2.6 million, after Mr Wright failed to meet his repayment obligations.

READ MORE

New solicitors

On Monday, Mr Justice Brian McGovern admitted Lauceston’s case seeking summary judgment against Mr Wright to the Commercial Court.

Mr Wright objected to the case being fast-tracked and wanted to get new solicitors to fight his case, the court was told. His current lawyers said they were only told of that decision on Monday morning.

Mr Wright, now representing himself, objected to the case being put into the fast-track commercial list arguing there was no urgency to it and he has been dealing with Lauceston for some three years.

James Doherty SC, for Lauceston, said his client had to take previous injunction proceedings against Mr Wright to prevent him interfering with a a receiver appointed over the properties. What brought greater pressure to the matter was Mr Wright’s response to the injunction and his obstruction to the putting up of other properties for sale, counsel said.

Mr Justice McGovern said he was satisfied it was an appropriate case to admit to the commercial list. Mr Wright had left it rather late in the day to change lawyers but the court would allow him take whatever steps he wished in that regard, the judge said. He adjourned the case for a month.