Beades's liability to ACC reduced to only €1.5m

A LENGTHY legal battle between businessman Jerry Beades and ACC Bank has ended at the High Court with orders meaning Mr Beades and his company now face a total liability of €1.5 million out of loans of more than €6 million advanced to them by the bank.

Mr Beades was also yesterday given an unusual length of time – 16 months – by Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan to repay the €1.5 million sum because of several factors, particularly the bank’s loss over two years of title deeds of properties owned by Mr Beades which negligence, the judge previously ruled, caused him substantial losses.

The bank had sought repayment within a maximum three month period, while Mr Beades looked for two years but the judge ruled a 16-month stay would do justice to both sides.

She said she was taking into account that the situation in which Mr Beades and his company found themselves was due in part to the matters in the case. The general market situation was also a factor and she would allow a reasonable period to provide for sales of apartments, the proceeds of which were intended to meet the ACC debt.

In allowing a 16-month stay to June 30th, 2010, she was also taking into account it was in Mr Beades’s favour that no interest would apply to the judgment sum until after the stay expired.

The judge was making final orders in the proceedings by ACC against Mr Beades and Fairlee Properties Ltd, of Richmond Road, Fairview, Dublin.

Earlier this month, in a decision clarifying issues relating to banks’ duty of care to customers, the judge ruled the bank was liable for more than €4.76 million damages to Mr Beades over losses suffered by him due to the bank’s negligence in losing title deeds over a two-year period.

The damages were set off against ACC’s agreed entitlement to repayment of loans of some €6.27 million made to Mr Beades and Fairlee. Yesterday, on consent of both sides, the judge made orders for judgment in the sum of €1,508,838 against Mr Beades and Fairlee. It was also agreed there would be a stay on the judgment, with interest at the Courts Act rate applying on the judgment sum only after the stay expired and there would be no order for costs in the case.