Attempt to keep luxury family home fails

A bid by the adult children of solicitor Brian O’Donnell to prevent a bank-appointed receiver taking over the family home was rejected by the High Court yesterday.

Mr Justice Brian McGovern said Mr O’Donnell’s occupation of the house at Gorse Hill, Vico Road, Killiney, Dublin, was part of a device to frustrate previous court orders granting the receiver possession.

He also rejected a claim by Mr O’Donnell’s son Blake that his parents had a right of residence, granted to them by their children.

“It is the receiver who is in control and it is not in the power of the plaintiffs — the O’Donnell children —whether Mr and Mrs O’Donnell should reside there,” said Mr Justice McGovern.

The receiver, Tom Kavanagh, had a right to vacant possession on foot decisions by the High and Supreme Courts and the O’Donnell parents were not entitled to possession. “This is a device for the purpose of frustrating decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court”, he said.

The case was before the court after the four O’Donnell children — Blake, Blaise, Bruce, and Alexandra — sought an injunction claiming the previous court orders were obtained on the basis of fraud and perjury by Bank of Ireland.

The bank had obtained a €71.5m judgment against their parents, Brian and Mary Patricia O’Donnell, over unpaid loans and part of the security for those loans had been Gorse Hill.

On Monday, Mr Kavanagh was due to take possession but, the court heard, there were reports that Brian O’Donnell had barricaded himself in and invited support from anti-repossession group the New Land League.

Cian Ferriter SC, for the bank, provided the court with an update as to what was happening on the ground at Gorse Hill following a request from the judge.

Counsel said there had been a “disturbing dimension” in relation to the proceedings, with Brian O’Donnell having invited in the self-styled Land League, which says it was speaking on behalf of the solicitor as though he was “some unfortunate tenanted cottier who cannot speak for himself and has got them in as some sort of foot soldiers”.

Blake O’Donnell, who is also a solicitor, argued the case for an injunction and told the judge an affidavit filed by the receiver as to what had been happening seemed to be “a media review designed for a few quotes for the newspapers but there is nothing really of any substance in it”.

In rejecting the injunction application, Mr Justice McGovern said he had carefully considered matters and found there was no bona fide issue to be tried.

He said he was satisfied that the case made by the O’Donnell children had been fully dealt with in the High and Supreme Courts.

He rejected their claim that a company, Vico Ltd, which the courts found owned Gorse Hill, was entitled to bring the injunction application in its own right because it had not been party to the previous cases.

This issue had been canvassed at the original High Court hearing and counsel for the O’Donnell children, Ross Maguire, had told the court then that he was not seeking to join Vico in the case, he said.

Both the High and Supreme Court had found Vico Ltd owned Gorse Hill and formed part of the security for the €71.5m O’Donnell parents’ debt, said Mr Justice McGovern.

The O’Donnell parents were directors of Vico from July to December 2012 and it was struck off the register of companies but restored to seven days after the Supreme Court decision rejecting the appeal against repossession of Gorse Hill, he said.

No satisfactory explanation was given as to why it took so long for Vico to make the claim it was now making.

Apart from the delay and the fact it had already been ruled on, it also amounted to an abuse of process, said Mr Justice McGovern.

He also rejected the O’Donnell childrens’ claim that the case should not have been brought by Bank of Ireland Private Banking, a wing of the bank which the judge said deals with high net worth individuals. It was clear the money was lent to the parents by Bank of Ireland and that point had also been raised with and dealt with in the previous cases.

Mr Ferriter, for the bank, then asked the judge if Blake O’Donnell would phone his father and ask if he intended to remain in the house.

Blake O’Donnell said it was a matter for the bank to contact his father but the judge directed he phone his father and he would grant a brief adjournment for him to do so.

When the court resumed, Blake O’Donnell said his father told him he was “not a party to the proceedings” and if the receiver wants to enforce the order then he should serve papers on him.

When asked twice by the judge whether his parents were going to obstruct the receiver in taking possession, Blake O’Donnell said they did not accept the receiver had a right to do so. He then said the judge’s decision would be appealed.

Mr Ferriter said in view of the “shocking approach” by Mr and Mrs O’Donnell, his client was now making an application to serve notice on the couple of the bank’s intention to seek orders preventing them interfering with the receiver.

Mr Ferriter said there may be difficulties serving the couple, as the post box had been removed from outside Gorse Hill and the only way to speak with anyone in the house was by intercom.

The judge granted Mr Ferriter permission to serve notice by email and by posting the papers on the gate of Gorse Hill. He would deal with the bank’s injunction application tomorrow.