Ahmad case adjourned as contempt motion is withdrawn

A High Court judge remarked yesterday that a businessman, said to now owe up to €500,000 to another businessman, has conducted his financial affairs in an "extraordinary" way.

Mr Justice Kelly made the comment about businessman Mr Naseem Ahmad when adjourning, at the request of Mr Patrick Hynes, a businessman creditor of Mr Ahmad's, motion to jail Mr Ahmad for a third time for contempt of court.

Mr Ahmad, of Old Clybaun Road, Galway, was previously jailed on two occasions - in November 2003 and March 2004 - for contempt of court orders requiring him to honour a debt to Mr Hynes and to make full disclosure of his assets.

In November 2003, Mr Ahmad spent a number of days in prison for failing to comply with an undertaking that he would be personally responsible for any damages or costs awarded against a company with which he was associated, Fahd Foods, arising from previous court proceedings.

In the earlier proceedings, a claim by Fahd Foods against Mr Patrick Hynes, Beltra, Co Sligo, and Beltra Meats, Sligo,was dismissed by the High Court. Mr Hynes' counterclaim against Fahd Foods was successful with an award for some €363,000 and costs.

Lawyers for Mr Hynes have been trying to recover that award since.

Yesterday, with Mr Ahmad facing a third motion to have him jailed for contempt, Mr Justice Kelly was told that solicitors for Mr Ahmad have been instructed to lodge a debtors petition for bankruptcy which was listed for hearing on July 12th next.

Mr Ahmad, who was representing himself, said hiring a solicitor was very expensive and said he had prepared books of papers regarding the bankruptcy hearing.

Mr Paul Gardiner SC, for Mr Hynes, said a letter from a solicitor had been received on June 17th which indicated that a particular premises was, contrary to what the court had been told in earlier hearings, initially purchased by Mr Ahmad.

Mr Gardiner said the letter had stated the property would be sold. He understood some of the monies due to Mr Hynes would be paid from the proceeds of that sale if the contempt motion was not proceeded with.

In those circumstances, and after taking instructions, Mr Gardiner said he was withdrawing the contempt motion. He said that in addition to the debt owed by Mr Ahmad to Mr Hynes, there were also legal costs of some €200,000 which were incurred in trying to compel Mr Ahmad to pay that debt.

Adjourning the motion for contempt, Mr Justice Kelly said Mr Ahmad had conducted his financial affairs in an extraordinary way.

Details of the purchase of a property at Pembroke Road were not as had been initially presented to the court, and Mr Ahmad's own house had been sold in "a rather astonishing way", for a price some €60,000 to €90,000 below a valuation placed on it less than 11 months earlier.

And, although Mr Ahmad's house had been sold, his wife and children were still living there in what Mr Ahmad described as an "act of generosity" by the purchaser, the judge added.

This was all a very extraordinary way of dealing with financial affairs.

When the matter was last before the court earlier this month, documents presented had raised more questions than answers, the judge added.

However, he continued, Mr Hynes' concern was that the debt to him be paid. While there remained unresolved questions about Mr Ahmad's financial affairs, these were of limited interest to the court and there was no desire to put Mr Ahmad behind bars where there was now an effort to discharge his financial obligations.

The judge said he would adjourn the matter generally with liberty to re-enter.