Dundalk-based brothers in court row with father over share sales in family business

Seán McCaughey would not accept the sum offered by his sons for a stake in family timber company

Tia Clarke

Reporter:

Tia Clarke

Email:

tia.clarke@dundalkdemocrat.ie

iddt4 iJM Timber Company

Mr Justice Brian McGovern advised the main shareholders in the McCaughey family to consider mediation

A row between a father and his two Dundalk-based sons over the sale of shares in a timber company was heard by the Commercial Court.

The case was brought to the court by 84-year-old retired businessman Seán McCaughey, who has an address in Gran Canaria. McCaughey has a 70% shareholding in IJM Timber Engineering Ltd. The company, which has 250 employees, has a registered address in Larlurcan, Co Monaghan and is also based in Dundalk.

His sons Peter McCaughey and Martin McCaughey have addresses in Hackballscross, Dundalk and Dundalk respectively.

The Irish Times reported that Mr Justice Brian McGovern agreed to admit the case to the list of the fast-track court. However, he advised the main shareholders in the McCaughey family to consider mediation.

Seán McCaughey’s court action was taken against the company, his sons Peter and Martin, and a director of IJM, Gregory McKenna with an address in Emyvale, Co Monaghan.

The Irish Times also reported that Mr McCaughey said the court case was the result of “unsuccessful negotiations” between him and his sons regarding the sale of his majority shareholding in the timber company.

The Irish Times also reported: “his (Seán McCaughey) refusal to consent to the acquisition of his shares at what he claims was an undervalued price brought about a progressive deterioration in his relationship with his sons”.

Mr McCaughey also told the Commercial Court that he was “generally happy” with the idea of his shares being sold. However, he said he later thought that the sum, approx. €1.4 million was too low.

Mr McCaughey also told the court he was unsatisfied with resolutions passed at an EGM last year which he claimed would “further dilute” his shareholding in the company.

The case is due to come back before the court next week.