A Dublin house worth more than £500,000 is the subject of legal action involving two former live-in partners, Mr Frank Haughton and Ms Helen Kilmartin.
The Circuit Civil Court was told yesterday that Mr Haughton, who runs a number of public houses in Prague, and Ms Kilmar tin had separated in mid-1996, when he left their home of six years at Pembroke Lane, Balls bridge, Dublin, and moved into a rented apartment in Dublin.
Mr John Gordon SC, for Mr Haughton, told Judge Liam Devally that his client had bought the house in 1988 for £144,000 and had since discharged a mortgage with National Irish Bank, apart from a final payment, which had been made by Ms Kilmartin.
He said Mr Haughton worked almost exclusively in Prague, where he ran a number of public houses. He had sought possession of the property after the relationship broke up early in the summer of 1996.
Ms Kilmartin had refused to surrender possession and Mr Haughton was seeking an order of possession from the court.
Mr Gordon said that Ms Kil martin had lodged a defence in which she acknowledged that Mr Haughton was the registered owner of the property, but she had counter-claimed for a 50 per cent entitlement on the grounds that she had made direct and indirect contributions to the property over the years.
Mr Gordon said £30,000 had been spent on renovations in 1988 and a further £50,000 had been similarly spent in 1994.
Ms Kilmartin had conceded, in reply to a letter of particulars, that the £30,000 figure had been paid by Mr Haughton, who was now claiming that she had not contributed to the £50,000 spent on the house six years later. Mr Haughton would claim that he had paid the £50,000 through a company, Specialist Trading Systems Ltd, and in cash.
Mr Gordon said that Ms Kilmartin had been working in First Savers Ltd, a company jointly owned by the couple. That company had operated a shop, Presents of Mind, at Royal Hibernian Way, Dawson Street, Dublin, which had since moved and was currently trading as Minima interior designs, St Stephen's Green, from which she was drawing a salary of £300 a week.
He said Ms Kilmartin had promised to furnish details of how she had paid the £50,000 in 1994 for renovations, but his client had never received that information.
Counsel said that Mr Haugh ton's case was a simple one in which he claimed that Ms Kilmartin had no entitlement to the house, of which she had been in free occupation for the past three years. There were a number of judgment mortgages, amounting to £190,000, registered against the property, which would have to be met by Mr Haughton in due course.
Ms Mary O'Toole, with Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Ms Kil martin, said it was her case that the parties had agreed the property would be held by them jointly as joint owners, and Ms Kilmartin had expended money on the premises in the knowledge that that would be the case.
She said there would be corroborative evidence from third parties that both Mr Haughton and Ms Kilmartin held themselves to be joint owners and that Mr Haughton had at all times recognised Ms Kilmartin's benefit of 50 per cent.
Ms O'Toole said that Ms Kil martin had gone to great lengths to provide details of cheques going back to 1994 and invoices covering various items of work which had been carried out. Mr Haugh ton's claim was that the money spent on works carried out to the property was in fact his money, which had been lodged to Ms Kilmartin's account.
He had made no attempt to establish this claim and had not established it.
Ms Kilmartin would be telling the court that the money came from her and had been paid from her account and through her business account. She was a 50 per cent partner in the company which she ran, in which Mr Haughton had no act or part.
The action was adjourned to facilitate the arrangement of a special two-day hearing.