Lynches to appeal finding they must repay AIB €26m

BUSINESSMAN Philip Lynch and his family are to appeal to the Supreme Court against a finding they must repay €26 million to AIB arising from an unpaid loan made to them and developer Gerry Conlon to buy development lands in Waterford.

Mr Justice Micheal Peart, who previously found the family were liable for the loan, yesterday said AIB was entitled to judgment orders for about €26m each against Mr Lynch, his wife Eileen, and children Judith, Paul, Phillippa and Therese, but agreed to stay the orders until January 11 when he will rule if the family are entitled to a longer stay.

Rossa Fanning, for Gerry Conlon, said the decision on the Lynches’ liability meant Mr Conlon had no defence to a similar judgment being entered against him but wanted until January 11 to check the bank’s documents and also wanted a stay. If the Lynches won their appeal that would get Mr Conlon “off the hook” and mean he was also not liable to AIB.

The judge adjourned to January 11 his decision on whether to grant a stay pending appeal and granted an interim stay until then. He will also rule on the costs issues arising from the lengthy case.

The judge said Mr Conlon’s arguments for a stay may be weaker in circumstances where he had not supported the Lynch side in their action.

Earlier, Michael McDowell SC, for the family, objected to entry of judgment, saying the bank was seeking such orders after evading calling any oral evidence of its actions concerning this loan. The effect of judgment orders against various members of the family whose assets did not come near €26m was “catastrophic”, he said.

The family were appealing on several grounds and wanted a stay on any judgment orders pending appeal, he said. They would argue the judge was wrong to find the bank breached no duty of care to the Lynches and that two legal firms had no liability to them.

Mr Lynch was prepared to lodge €500,000 in court as a measure of the seriousness with which he viewed the appeal and the family were prepared to undertake not to dissipate their assets pending its outcome, counsel said.

Michael Collins SC, for AIB, in seeking judgment against all the family and opposing a stay, argued the court had ruled the bank was entitled to judgment and the grounds of appeal against the bank were “incredibly thin”.

Mr Lynch was indicating he would put in €500,000 against a liability of €26m. The court was entitled to assume there was a pool of other creditors seeking to recover debts from Mr Lynch, he said.