Baron Inchiquin sues Denis O'Brien

The 18th Baron Inchiquin, head of the O’Brien clan, who this week secured what he claims is “a paper judgment” for €7.9 million…

The 18th Baron Inchiquin, head of the O’Brien clan, who this week secured what he claims is “a paper judgment” for €7.9 million against an insolvent company allegedly controlled by businessman Denis O’Brien, is now seeking to have Mr O’Brien and other alleged directors of the company made personally liable for the estimated €250,000 costs of the action.

Earlier this week, Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan awarded the €7.9 million damages to Conor Myles John O’Brien, Thomond House, Dromoland, the 18th Baron Inchiquin, against Trinity Property Holdings Ltd over its repudiation of an agreement for the sale of 377 acres at Dromoland estate in Co Clare.

The lands are separate to Dromoland Castle which is on adjoining lands.

The case arose from a proposal, following alleged talks in 2006 between Denis O’Brien and Lord Inchiquin, for TPH to buy some 377 acres out of the 600 acre estate with a view to developing a five-star hotel, convention centre, golf course and club and five star housing on the lands.

READ MORE

Today, the judge granted Lord Inchiquin liberty to bring a motion to have Denis O’Brien and other alleged directors of TPH - Kieran Walshe, John Ryall, David Sykes and Michael McNally - made personally liable for the costs of the action.

Earlier, moving the application, John Gleeson SC said it was being made as a result of TPH’s decision of April 8th last to wind up the company.

While TPH had not contested the damages claim last Tuesday, the case had been fully defended until then, counsel said.

TPH had also made a counterclaim containing allegations against Lord Inchiquin that were “manifestly untrue”, counsel said. No explanation had been given to the court why the company had decided to go into voluntary liquidation, he added.

Given the “cynical manoeuvre” to go into liquidation, the €7.9m ruling against the company was in effect “a paper judgment”, Mr Gleeson said. His client had been “left high and dry.” Counsel said his side is also seeking to have costs against TPH made on a solicitor-client basis, the highest level of costs.

Lawyers for TPH had stated, in correspondence to his client’s solicitors, they did not believe there was any basis for having Mr O’Brien and the company directors made liable for the costs of the action, counsel said.

Lawyers for TPH, who were in court today, said Denis O’Brien is neither a director nor shareholder of TPH.

Mr Gleeson said a firm which has a 65 per cent shareholding in TPH is in the beneficial ownership by Mr O’Brien.

The judge adjourned the matter to a date later this month.