Judge refers property fraud judgments to DPP after damages awards

This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.

A High Court judge directed that two judgments in proceedings over the fraudulent transfer of Marie Gibson’s home be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP would decide whether to bring criminal charges against her daughter, Pauline Gibson.

Mr Justice Brian Cregan made the direction on 12 July 2023. Marie Gibson’s counsel, Hugh O’Flaherty BL, said she had no objection to the referral. Pauline Gibson did not participate in the proceedings.

The judge had set aside the transfer from Marie and her late husband John Gibson to Pauline Gibson, finding it fraudulent. The transfer took place in 2003 and was discovered in 2017, shortly after John Gibson’s death.

The court found that Pauline Gibson forged her parents’ signatures, obtained a €190,000 mortgage on the property and later defaulted. Marie and John Gibson were not properly advised about the transfer and received no benefit from the arrangement, the court held. Kevin O’Gorman acted as solicitor for both parties.

The judge set aside the mortgage charge and found the receiver’s appointment invalid. He ordered Pauline Gibson to pay her mother €75,000 in exemplary damages and Kevin O’Gorman to pay her €5,000 in compensatory damages and €30,000 in aggravated damages for negligence.

Promontoria Oyster DAC, which held the charge, opposed its removal and argued that the case involved undue influence rather than fraud. The judge rejected that argument. Mr O’Gorman remained neutral on the issue.

The judge deferred a final decision on referring findings concerning Mr O’Gorman to the Legal Services Regulation Authority, Revenue Commissioners and Law Society. His counsel, Eugene Gleeson SC, said Mr O’Gorman would prefer that the matters were not referred, adding that he was no longer a man of means and had already suffered from publicity.

Marie Gibson was awarded the vast bulk of her legal costs, but the costs orders had not been finalised because the court required further submissions.

This report covers an earlier stage of the case. Later developments are not reported here.