Independent.ie The former chief executive of collapsed spread betting firm WorldSpreads, Conor Foley, presented what the London High Court described as "astonishing" pleas as he unsuccessfully battled an effort by the firm to secure the repayment of £309,000 (€390,000).
AIM-listed Worldspreads spectacularly imploded in 2012, after the firm revealed a €12m shortfall in its accounts. That put the assets of about 15,000 retail customers at risk.
It was placed in administration by the UK's Financial Services Authority.
The court heard that between 2008 and 2012, Mr Foley, who had founded and controlled 17pc of WorldSpreads, had "adopted the habit" of requesting employees of UK-registered WorldSpreads who worked in the accounts department to make payments to him or for his benefit.
There were 81 requests in total, the court heard, amounting to just over £540,000 (€682,000).
Mr Foley also made £231,000 in repayments to WorldSpreads. The company - which was originally founded in Dublin in 2000 - wanted him to pay back the remainder with interest.
The executive had contended that the money was due to him from WorldSpreads by way of remuneration or expenses, a claim that the court said was "simply unfounded".
The court was told by the judge that an amended defence put forward by his legal team seemed to display "considerable ingenuity" as to why Mr Foley shouldn't have to repay the money.
The judge said those arguments were "totally devoid of merit or common sense".
The judge hearing the case in London said that Mr Foley had put forward arguments that were "intellectually challenging" and "wildly improbable".
A number of arguments put forward by his counsel on his behalf during the trial were later abandoned.
The court also said that he had put forward pleas that were "frankly unreal", including a claim by Mr Foley that WorldSpreads had benefited from "unjust enrichment" through Mr Foley's employment as he had not been adequately remunerated. The court ruled in favour of WorldSpreads.
Mr Foley resigned from WordSpreads just days before financial irregularities emerged at the firm, but he insisted at the time that he had not known of those irregularities before he left the company and that his decision to step down had been "completely unrelated".