A High Court judge has warned a barrister that he will go to jail in two weeks' time unless he meets all of his obligations under a contract of July 2005 for the sale of a central Dublin property.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly told Patrick Russell yesterday that if it were not for his health difficulties, he would be going to jail immediately for contempt of a court order requiring him to meet his contractual obligations.
If Mr Russell has not met his obligations by the morning of July 20th, the judge stressed he would send him to prison.
The judge also noted there had been no expression of regret or apology by Mr Russell to either the court or Paul Behan, a legal costs accountant with whom Mr Russell had negotiated the contract in July 2005.
This was "particularly regrettable" because Mr Russell was a member of the Bar and was very aware of what contempt of court meant, the judge said.
Mr Russell, Steelstown, Rathcoole, Co Dublin, was in court on foot of an application to have him committed to prison for contempt of a court order of March last requiring him to honour the terms of a contract under which he agreed to purchase from Mr Behan a premises at Inns Court, Dublin, for €1.3 million, plus VAT. The court order also required Mr Russell to pay an additional €75,000 interest and €58,817 in arrears of rent, rates and insurance.
Paul Coughlan, for Mr Behan, yesterday said he was applying "with a huge amount of reluctance" to have Mr Russell committed to prison for contempt of the court order. He said he had just received a replying affidavit from Mr Russell which referred to his "personal circumstances".
The matter was turning into "a game of ping and pong" and Mr Russell was now seeking to introduce another person to "muddy the waters". Mr Behan wanted nothing to do with any third party as his contract was with Mr Russell who continued to have the benefit of the occupation of the property without paying any money, Mr Coughlan said.
Last March the court had ordered Mr Russell to close the sale within two weeks but that had still not happened. His client had no desire to see Mr Russell in trouble but he was still no closer to closing the sale. While Mr Behan was sorry to hear Mr Russell had medical difficulties, "a contract is a contract is a contract" and Mr Russell was "dancing around a court order".
Counsel for Mr Russell said his client's problem was that when he went to meet his obligations, a further €90,000 was sought for legal costs and for distress caused to Mr Behan.
Mr Russell was close to completing the sale and to securing the funds necessary and, if the court was prepared to grant a stay, he believed he would be able to comply with the court order. He had tried to comply but the extra element was not foreseen and the matter had become "a new game" in which Mr Russell had to find an extra €90,000.
At that stage, Mr Justice Kelly remarked that "a starting point" would have been for Mr Russell to apologise to the court and to Mr Behan for his failure to comply with the court order.
The judge said that under the contract agreed between Mr Behan and Mr Russell on July 7th, 2005, Mr Russell was to pay €1.3 million for the property, plus VAT, and to lease the premises until the contract was completed. He had been in occupation for "a very long time" but nothing was paid to Mr Behan and the contract was never honoured.
Mr Behan had initiated proceedings last December and Mr Russell had not filed any defence.
Last March, the judge said, he made an order for specific performance of the contract but put a stay on its execution and on the registration of judgment against Mr Russell for two weeks. He was told then that if he complied, no judgment would be registered against him. However, there had been "complete non-compliance" which had led to this motion for contempt being brought.
The judge said Mr Russell has had health difficulties for the past three months, certified by a GP. However, the proceedings were initiated last December and the contract at the root of them dated back to July 2005.
