Citywest Receiver Suing Company For €28m To Complete Purchase
Published on Mar 25 2014 9:24 AM in Hotel
A receiver appointed to the Citywest Hotel in Dublin is suing a company over alleged failure to complete the purchase of the complex for €28 million. Many national newspapers report this morning tha...
A receiver appointed to the Citywest Hotel in Dublin is suing a company over alleged failure to complete the purchase of the complex for €28 million.
Many national newspapers report this morning that Martin Ferris, receiver of certain Citywest assets held by HSS, Jeffel (in receivership), Rattler Ltd and Citywest Resort Ltd, wants orders requiring CW Hotel Investments 2013 Ltd, Westland Square, Dublin, to complete the purchase.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Paul Kelly transferred the case to the Commercial Court on consent of the parties.
The Irish Independent report that Mr Ferris said on October 18 last year that Fadi Gemayel of Broadwalk, London, acting in trust for CW (formerly Celleron Ltd), entered into a contract with the Citywest owners to buy the property. The price for the hotel, conference centre, its leisure centre and attached buildings and land was €26.5 million and a €2.75 million deposit was paid. The golf course price was €1.5 million and a 10% deposit was paid.
The contract was to close on 11 December but CW did not complete the purchase, Mr Ferris said in an affidavit.
In January, CW lawyers said the Citywest owners were not ready to proceed, which was denied, but that they were willing to complete once certain matters were dealt with.
The companies denied there were any impediments to completion of the purchase and were not agreeable to further delay.
Mr Gemayel, for CW, then wrote suggesting a March 31 closing date or earlier if “all issues have been resolved”.
This was not acceptable but the Citywest companies indicated they were willing to accept a February 28 deadline.
Despite agreeing to this, CW had failed to complete, Mr Ferris said.
The Irish Examiner report that Mr Ferris is now seek an order requiring CW to perform the contract or damages in lieu of specific performance. Alternatively, they seek orders forfeiting the deposits.