Barlo proceedings settled after talks

Protracted legal proceedings involving the Barlo Group were settled at the High Court yesterday after lengthy and complex negotiations…

Protracted legal proceedings involving the Barlo Group were settled at the High Court yesterday after lengthy and complex negotiations between lawyers for the sides. No details of the settlement were announced.

Mr Justice Kearns, who had encouraged the sides to make every effort to resolve the actions, welcomed the resolution of what he described as "perhaps one of the most intractable commercial cases to come before the courts in recent years".

He thanked the parties involved and their lawyers whom he knew had worked very hard in achieving a resolution.

The hearing of the actions and counter claims linked to the Barlo Group had opened on Tuesday and was expected to last for some months.

READ MORE

However, just before 4.30 p.m. yesterday, Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for inventor Mr Brian Mooney and his brothers Eamonn and Roy, who had claimed that through their company Igote Ltd, they owned 40 and 49 per cent of two Barlo subsidiaries, said he was pleased to say the parties had resolved their differences and asked that the matter be adjourned to January 13th.

Mr Dermot Gleeson SC, for Barlo Group plc and a number of other related companies, told the judge the parties were very grateful for the court's indulgence.

Mr Justice Kearns said he was delighted to hear of the settlement and would adjourn the matter to January 13th.

The disputes had involved subsidiaries of Barlo Group and the Mooney brothers, who have been involved in joint ventures in the radiator industry since the early 1990s.

In four separate but related sets of proceedings, the Mooneys claimed that they had been excluded from any meaningful role in the management of joint ventures between their business and Barlo Group companies and sought confirmation of their 40 and 49 per cent holdings in two Barlo subsidiaries.

Barlo denied the claims and said that even if the Mooneys or their company had been excluded it was justified by their performance.

Both sides sued the other for allegedly interfering with each other's economic interests.