The High Court dismissed Brendan O’Rourke’s claim to a beneficial interest in Furness Hall, Naas, finding he had not proved that its owners promised it would become his and his former wife’s property or that he carried out works in reliance on such a promise.
The judgment, an addendum delivered by Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon on 25 October 2018, concerned the equity proceedings, one part of a series of cases involving the property. The court said the question of Ulster Bank’s priority as mortgagee belonged to separate possession proceedings; it was not deciding that issue in this case.
Furness Hall was bought in 2004 by Dermot and Perle O’Rourke as trustees of a discretionary trust for their daughter, Diane. The purchase was funded in part by a First Active loan. The court found Diane had a personal licence to live there, while legal title remained with the trustees, subject to the mortgage arrangements. It found the property was never transferred to Diane or Brendan and no completed gift was made.
Brendan claimed that representations, including remarks at his wedding, led him to believe he and Diane would own the house. He said he spent substantial sums on renovations. The trustees accepted an approximate figure of €250,000 for work, without accepting that it was done in reliance on any promise. Brendan claimed about €1.8 million. The judge found the expenditure evidence was not adequately supported and that the works, to the extent proved, were undertaken for the couple’s immediate enjoyment of the home.
The court accepted Dermot’s evidence that he had concerns about the marriage and had not promised beneficial ownership. It also found Brendan had signed documents referring to the trust and licence, and that his evidence about his knowledge of the arrangements was not credible. The judge made findings that evidence supporting the claimed expenditure included fabricated material, including a forged supplier signature, and concluded that Brendan’s conduct prevented the equitable claim from arising.
The court therefore found no representation or assurance, no reliance and no qualifying detriment. It dismissed the claim. The judgment did not determine the bank’s priority or the outcome of the separate possession proceedings.