A Belarus couple and their daughter yesterday gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court through their solicitor not to remove any of their assets out of Ireland pending the outcome of an appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant an injunction restraining the family from disposing of its assets below £300,000.
The Production Association Minsk Tractor Works and its Irish subsidiary, Belarus Equipment (Ireland) Ltd, are appealing the High Court's refusal to grant them an interlocutory injunction against Mr Gueannadi Seanko, his wife, Tatiana, and their daughter, Elena, of Oakley Drive, Grantstown, Waterford.
At a previous High Court hearing, both companies got a temporary injunction restraining the Seanko family from reducing its assets below £300,000 and from disposing of the proceeds from the sale of its house.
But the High Court later refused to grant the companies a permanent injunction which would have remained in effect until the legal proceedings are determined. It said the companies had produced no evidence of intent on the part of the Seanko family to evade its obligations.
Mr Seanko was managing director of Belarus Equipment (Ireland) Ltd from 1993 to 1997. His wife also worked for the company.
In the Supreme Court yesterday Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the companies, submitted the High Court was in error in refusing to grant his clients an interlocutory injunction. Mr Seanko had made no attempt to disclose how he came to have the monies in his accounts bearing in mind that during his time here his salary was just over £20,000 per annum.
He said the matter was of some urgency because Mr Seanko's Irish work permit was due to expire shortly.
He believed there was evidence of a risk of dissipation of monies held by the Seankos. It might be that the defendants did not wish to go back to Belarus but it also seemed likely that they would be unable to stay in Ireland.
Mr Gabriel Houghton, for the Seankos, said he had received a fresh affidavit from the companies just before the case had begun and had not had time to examine it in detail.
After Mr Houghton gave an undertaking on behalf of his clients that they would not remove any of their assets outside the country and would only draw down money for living expenses and business purposes, the Supreme Court adjourned the appeal until March 16th.