Businessman disputes nature of estate deal

There will be evidence from a number of people, including a solicitor, that reference was made to a joint investment agreement (JIA) at a meeting closing a deal for the €3.3 million purchase of a 100-acre property, Mount Falcon Castle in Co Mayo, the High Court was told yesterday.

Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for four businessmen who are being sued by Mr Enda Hunston, a financial adviser, said he would be calling evidence that a JIA was referred to and explained to Mr Hunston at a meeting in Dublin on March 28th, 2002, and that Mr Hunston had signed that JIA.

Mr Hunston, who claims that his signature on a JIA of that date was forged, said there was no reference to any JIA at the meeting.

He agreed that he was given a document which, he said, was explained to him as an asset management contract.

He said that he had not read the document and had relied on advice from a solicitor, Mr Michael Doran, regarding that document.

He agreed that he had had an opportunity to go into the document in fine detail. He said that he had not taken the opportunity to do so because he was happy with Mr Doran's explanation of the document.

Mr Hunston has taken proceedings against Mr Barry Maloney, former chief executive of Esat Digifone; Mr Maloney's brothers, Alan and James; and Mr Bruce Dunlevie, a UK venture capitalist.

The court was told that the JIA was among a number of documents signed on March 28th, 2002, in relation to the closing of the deal between the vendors of the Mount Falcon site on one hand and Mr Hunston, the Maloney brothers and Mr Dunlevie on the other.

Mr Hunston has claimed that he and the defendants were in partnership to buy the property with a view to developing it as a hotel and leisure complex, with fishing lodges.

The defendants have strongly denied that the disputed signature on the JIA was forged. They plead that it is Mr Hunston's and have claimed he is seeking to renege on the JIA because the contractor selected after a tender process to undertake the main development was not the contractor of Mr Hunston's choice. Mr Hunston has denied that claim.

The defendants also deny that the arrangement involving them and Mr Hunston was a partnership, and they plead that the JIA specifically excluded a partnership.

They also plead that a fundamental part of the JIA was that the parties to it would operate in good faith, would regard the development as a long-term venture, and would not initiate legal proceedings seeking to have their part of the property sold.

The hearing, before Mr Justice Ó Caoimh, continues today.