Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd and Ulster Bank Ltd as security for the finance parties v Taggart (Michael Adrian) and Taggart (John Desmond)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NIQB 46 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 22 June 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2012] NIQB 46 Ref:
McCL8540
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
22/06/2012
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISON
________
BETWEEN:
ULSTER BANK IRELAND LIMITED
-and-
ULSTER BANK LIMITED
As Security Trustee for the Finance Parties
Plaintiffs/Respondents;
-and-
MICHAEL ADRIAN TAGGART
-and-
JOHN DESMOND TAGGART
Defendants/Appellants.
__________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] These are separate, inter-related actions in which the Plaintiffs sue the
Defendants on foot of guarantees allegedly executed by the Defendants on
8th August 2007 and 30th November 2007 respectively. The Plaintiffs successfully
applied for summary judgment in both cases. The Master made orders in the
Plaintiffs' favour in the amounts of £5 million and €4.3 million. The Defendants
challenge these orders before this court.
[2] The Plaintiffs are banking organisations engaged in the business of providing
conventional banking facilities and services. The Defendants carry on business as
builders and developers. Both Defendants are directors of Taggart Holdings
Limited, a member of the Taggart group of companies (which I shall describe as “the
Taggart Group”). The Defendants have shareholdings of 51% and 49% respectively in
2
the Taggart Group. The latter is a multi-million pound business which, until
recently, had a turnover which was at one stage £165 million per annum. The
Defendants’ construction and development business activities have been conducted
both locally and further afield. A substantial growth in the Group’s profits in 2006
was widely reported. In May 2007, the “Ulster Business” publication described the
Group as “ one of Ireland’s fastest growing house builders, with significant investment
interests in the UK, France and New Zealand”. The first-named Defendant (“MT”)
described a plan to increase housing unit sales to 1,000 units annually from 2007 and
to achieve an annual turnover in excess of £1 billion by 2012. In 2006, the Group
purchased Fraser Estates for an amount variously described as £88 million and £100
million. In September 2006, the Sunday Independent Business described the
Defendants as “the richest business people in the country”. The Defendants’ own
affidavits describe their turnover for year ended December 2006 as £112 million. The
Taggart Group has been in administration since 20th October 2008, the administrator
being PWC. Based on all the evidence, it seems to me appropriate to describe the
Defendants as experienced businessmen, whose business activities have involved
them in extensive dealings with financial and lending institutions.
Chronology
[3] I record the following landmark dates and events:
(a) 27th October 2006: the first “Kinsealy” guarantee.
(b) 5th June 2007: the first of the Plaintiffs’ Credit Committee reports
belonging to this period.
(c) 28th June 2007: engagement of KPMG by the Defendants.
(d) 29th June 2007: the bank’s letter of instructions to their solicitors
(McKees).
(e) 19th July 2007: the date when the second-named Defendant (“JT”)
executed, unilaterally, what I shall describe as “the August 2007
guarantee” (which was held in escrow).
(f) 23rd July 2007: the “July 2007 facilities letter”.
(g) 6th August 2007: the KPMG “Cash Flow Forecast” report.
(h) 8th August 2007: inter-partes meeting, during which the Plaintiffs and
Defendants executed the August 2007 guarantee.
(i) 22nd November 2007: the “November 2007 facilities letter”.
(j) 30th November 2007: the second Kinsealy guarantee.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Praxis Care and Persons Unknown
...4 of judgment.) [11] See also Secretary of State for the Environment v Meier [2009] UKSC 11 at [8] and Ulster Bank Limited v Taggart [2012] NIQB 46. The defendant must show an arguable case, in Mr McMillan’s words, that it has a right to remain on the land after the licence has expired just......