A DUBLIN SOLICITOR being pursued for €75 million by Bank of Ireland over unpaid loans has accused the bank of mounting a “blitzkrieg” against him and his wife in how it demanded repayment and appointed receivers over properties. “We did not know what was coming,” Brian O’Donnell said.
Mr O’Donnell said his children had surrendered their beneficial ownership of the family home in Killiney, Dublin, to the bank “under duress” after being told they would be “out on the street” if they did not sign the relevant documents.
He himself was living on “very little” and his income was “not huge”. He and his wife were getting some fees for consultancy and strategic issue services respectively, provided to management companies, of some of which his children were directors. The couple had three accounts here with Allied Irish Banks and an account with HSBC in London but, “sadly”, no monies on deposit.
During continued examination yesterday – as part of the bank’s efforts to recover some €75 million under judgment orders entered against Mr O’Donnell and his wife, Dr Mary Patricia O’Donnell, – the solicitor was asked several times by Mr Justice Peter Kelly to stop “making speeches” and “interminably fencing” with counsel and to answer the questions put to him.
As a solicitor, Mr O’Donnell “should know better” and was doing himself “no favours”, the judge told him.
At the close of yesterday’s hearing, the judge agreed to adjourn the examination to facilitate meetings in London and elsewhere concerning other legal proceedings involving the couple.
Paul Gardiner SC, for Bank of Ireland, said what Mr O’Donnell had said about various matters was “not credible” and that he would be seeking various documents from him and was likely to seek a sworn statement of means.
The judge adjourned the examination until next Tuesday and asked Mr O’Donnell to provide the documents sought by the bank. Mr O’Donnell had told the judge he was currently involved in four sets of legal proceedings. A substantial number of civil actions had also been brought, he said earlier.
In reply to Mr Gardiner, he agreed that various documents certified or signed by him – which indicated he and his wife owned multimillion investment properties – were “inaccurate”, as beneficial ownership of those properties had earlier been transferred via trusts to the couple’s children.
He disagreed that the documents referred to were “untrue” and said the trust documents, which were placed in sealed brown envelopes in safes in London and Dublin, were for “family planning”, “estate planning” and “a private matter”.
The couple’s estate planning was generally well-known to the bank, he said. Mr Gardiner said that assertion was “nonsense”.
Mr O’Donnell said the envelopes containing the trust documents were to be opened only if anything happened to him and his wife. He never thought they would be used and they were put among wills and private papers “for safe keeping”. The trust documents relate to three London properties – Westferry Circus and Columbus Courtyard, both at Canary Wharf, London, and London House, Barton Street.
Mr Gardiner put it to Mr O’Donnell a number of times that, if the trusts were valid, then various documents signed and certified by him relating to the couple’s ownership of the properties were “untrue”.
Mr O’Donnell said he believed the documents related to registered ownership, he had not prepared them, he was involved in managing many companies and there were some errors in the documents. Directed by the judge to answer the question, Mr O’Donnell agreed the documents conveyed an “inaccurate” picture but said he would not use the word “untrue”.He agreed the trusts would have an impact on the bank’s efforts to recover but said that would only be the case if they were of any value.
