The High Court has dismissed an application by Blake, Bruce, Brian and Mary Patricia O’Donnell to have a Bank of Ireland case heard in England and Wales. The ruling decides where the case may proceed; it does not determine the bank’s allegations of fraud or conspiracy, which remain unproven.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered judgment on 26 October 2012 in the High Court’s Commercial list. The bank alleges that Brian and Mary Patricia O’Donnell misrepresented their assets and transferred interests in two Canary Wharf office buildings to their son Blake through trusts. It also alleges that all four defendants conspired to damage the bank’s interests. The judge expressly made no finding on the merits of those claims.
The dispute follows an uncontested Irish judgment for €71,575,991 against Brian and Mary Patricia O’Donnell, entered on 12 December 2011 after they defaulted on loans. A settlement had been reached in March 2011 but broke down when instalments were not paid. In connection with the earlier proceedings, the couple had listed the relevant assets as theirs, the judgment says; they later claimed beneficial interests were held in trust for Blake.
The bank sought to enforce its judgment in England and Wales by placing a charge on a share in Hibernia 2005 Limited, a company connected to the Westferry Circus building. A London court granted the application in February 2012, then stayed enforcement in April pending the couple’s bankruptcy proceedings there. The ownership issue was raised as a defence in that enforcement process. The Irish High Court said that process was not a separate cause of action requiring the Irish case to be heard elsewhere.
The judge held that the Brussels I Regulation did not govern enforcement of the uncontested judgment under the European Enforcement Order rules. He went on to consider forum under Brussels I in case that view was wrong. On the evidence and for the relevant period, he found all four defendants ordinarily resident in Ireland; he also said Bruce O’Donnell was indisputably domiciled here. The loans, asset declarations and alleged scheme were connected to Ireland, and relevant witnesses were within the Irish court’s reach, he said.
The court therefore dismissed the application to decline jurisdiction. It did not decide ownership of the buildings or shares, the validity of the trusts, or whether any defendant committed wrongdoing. The judgment also did not determine the separate English bankruptcy proceedings.