Supreme Court dismisses Lawlor's claim he had 20% stake in venture

The Supreme Court has dismissed a claim by Dublin West TD Mr Liam Lawlor that he had an agreement under which he had a 20 per…

The Supreme Court has dismissed a claim by Dublin West TD Mr Liam Lawlor that he had an agreement under which he had a 20 per cent stake in a joint venture company set up to acquire and develop lands purchased for £19 million in west Co Dublin.

Mr Lawlor, of Somerton, Lucan, Co Dublin, had taken proceedings against a property developer and company director Mr Seamus Ross, of Clonsilla, Co Dublin, and against two companies which, it was claimed, Mr Ross controls: Menolly Homes Ltd and Menolly Properties Ltd, both with registered offices at the Village Centre, Lucan.

Mr Lawlor claimed that, before March 1997, he and a Mr Peter Dwyer were developing lands at the Phibblestown, Castaheany and Allendale areas of Co Dublin for residential purposes. With a view to development of these lands - as well as "the Guinness lands" - it was decided that he and Mr Dwyer would co-operate with Mr Ross and Menolly Properties, he claimed. The TD's case was that Mr Ross and his companies were developing lands in the area which Mr Ross had bought, and that it was decided to proceed by way of a joint venture. Mr Lawlor alleged the shareholding in the corporate body to be formed was 20 per cent to him and 40 per cent each to Mr Ross and Mr Dwyer.

Dismissing the TD's claim, Mr Justice Fennelly, giving one of two Supreme Court judgments, said the essence of the claim was that Mr Ross and his companies had purchased "the Guinness lands" without making a provision for Mr Lawlor's 20 per cent share.

READ MORE

There was disagreement as to the contractual value of a document prepared by Mr Lawlor at a March 5th, 1997 meeting, the judge noted. Mr Lawlor claimed this represented evidence of a concluded agreement while Mr Ross said the discussion was tentative.

The judge said "the fatal flaw" in Mr Lawlor's claim was clear evidence that an integral part of the March 1997 agreement was the question of how the venture was to be financed. It was left over for discussion at a later date. In those circumstances, the judge found there was no concluded contract, and dismissed Mr Lawlor's appeal.