Jackie Lavin sues Bill Cullen over Muckross home

Businesswoman claims financial support she gave was on condition of sale of Killegy House

Bill Cullen and Jackie Lavin: Ms Lavin, of Osberstown House, Naas, Co Kildare, has brought proceedings against Glencullen Properties Ltd and Mr Cullen, also of Osberstown House. Photograph: Aidan Crawley
Bill Cullen and Jackie Lavin: Ms Lavin, of Osberstown House, Naas, Co Kildare, has brought proceedings against Glencullen Properties Ltd and Mr Cullen, also of Osberstown House. Photograph: Aidan Crawley

Businesswoman Jackie Lavin is suing her long-time partner Bill Cullen and one of his companies over alleged failure to complete an alleged €1 million deal for the sale of Killegy House in Co Kerry to her.

Ms Lavin, of Osberstown House, Naas, Co Kildare, has brought proceedings against Glencullen Properties Ltd and Mr Cullen, also of Osberstown House. He is a director of the firm and its sole shareholder.

In 2012, Ulster Bank appointed accountancy firm Kavanagh Fennell as receivers over the company's assets, including Killegy House, Muckross, Killarney.

Ms Lavin, represented by Patrick Leonard SC, claims she has been a longtime resident of that property and considers it her home.

READ MORE

She said she had been employed by Glencullen in a management capacity and Ulster Bank in 1999 created a charge over Glencullen’s assets, including Killegy House.

The company had, in 2009, sought additional credit facilities from Ulster Bank to allow it continue to trade during the downturn but the bank was unwilling to do this unless €1 million was invested in the company, she claims.

Following the sale of a property owned by the couple in Florida for $7.25 million (€6.7 million), Ms Lavin claims she agreed to advance Mr Cullen €1 million so he could pay down Glencullen’s liabilities. As part of the arrangement, Killegy House was to be sold to her.

Loss and damage

While she paid some €757,000 to the company, it has failed to complete the sale of the property to her and she has suffered loss and damage as a result, she claims.

After the company was put in receivership, it secured an order from the Residential Tenancies Board requiring her to leave Killegy House, she claims.

In her action, she wants orders requiring sale of Killegy House to her and prohibiting the defendants entering into any contract to sell it to anyone else.

Glencullen, represented by Bernard Dunleavy SC, denies the claims while Mr Cullen, the court heard, has not delivered a defence to the proceedings.

In its defence, the company accepts Ms Lavin agreed to advance Mr Cullen €1 million so he could loan Glencullen funds to reduce its liabilities but denies the monies were advanced as part of an agreement to sell Killegy House to her. It claims it never agreed to sell the premises to her and there is no contract of sale between the parties.

At no time before May 2013 had Ms Lavin mentioned any agreement involving her buying the property from Glencullen, it contends.

The company claims Ms Lavin has failed to comply with the order requiring her to leave Killegy House and says it has brought enforcement proceedings before the Circuit Court.

Statutory declaration

After advancing the loan to Mr Cullen in late 2010, Ms Lavin signed a statutory declaration she did not hold any interest right or title to any assets of Glencullen, it claims. The declaration, sought by Ulster Bank, was signed after she had received independent legal advice, it alleges.

Due to an “oversight”, Killegy House was not listed in documents of the declaration concerning property of Glencullen, it claims.

Ms Lavin accepts she signed a waiver as part of the arrangement after getting legal advice it was not in her interests to do so but says she signed the waiver because otherwise the bank would cut Glencullen off from access to further credit.

The case was mentioned before Mr Justice Tony O’Connor at the High Court on Friday in relation to discovery of documents from Ulster Bank which Ms Lavin contends are relevant to her claim. The bank is not a party to her case.

Following discussions, the court was told a timetable for exchange of materials had been agreed and the case was adjourned for mention to late next month.