Judgment in the case involving property developer Bernard McNamara has been postponed for 24 hours.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly was due to deliver his ruling today on a request for a stay on an order that Mr McNamara pay €62.5 million to a group of Davy investors.
However, he agreed to postpone delivery of his ruling after he was told that Mr McNamara had sought a 24 hour delay, and the investors had no difficulty with it being granted.
Yesterday the court heard there was a possibility that the making of the order could trigger other calls on Mr McNamara and his businesses, which directly and indirectly are said to support more than 1,000 workers.
The court was told Mr McNamara, who was once believed to be one of Ireland's wealthiest men, now had no assets that are not encumbered and was not in a position to repay the investors.
He has offered to pay them €100,000 per month pending a case where he is seeking to have the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) indemnify his investment in a property project involving the former Irish Glass Bottle (IGB) site in Ringsend, Dublin.
The investors had put money into the company Mr McNamara used for his involvement in the project, which also involves the DDDA.
John Gleeson SC, for counsel for the investors, said today it was Mr McNamara's side who were seeking time and the investors — who include businessmen Lochlann Quinn and Martin Naughton — were agreeable to the matter being adjourned until tomorrow. In those circumstances, the judge agreed to defer his ruling until tomorrow afternoon.
Last month, the judge found the investors were entitled to the summary judgment orders after finding the defendants had advanced no arguable defence but he agreed to defer entering judgment pending the hearing of the defendants' application for a stay pending their appeal against his ruling.
The IGB site was bought by a consortium of the DDDA, Mr McNamara, and another developer, Derek Quinlan. After planning permission was not obtained for the development within 30 months of January 2007, the investors claimed entitlement to their monies.
The defendants argued their prospect of securing permission was partially frustrated because of a High Court decision in another case which, they claimed, meant the DDDA had no power to issue the Section 25 certificates in relation to a development with which it was itself involved.