The High Court has ruled that three plaintiffs established a good arguable case in their claim that a former property-restoration project manager fraudulently obtained reimbursements, and said they were entitled to an interlocutory Mareva injunction. The court did not finally determine any factual or legal dispute and deferred the injunction’s terms for a further hearing.
Bonice Property Corp., Octara Limited and Stephen Evans-Freke allege that Anne Oakes, also known as Juliana Mary Thornton, claimed inflated or fictitious payments for tradespeople and suppliers during restoration work at Castle Freke and Rathbarry Castle in West Cork. Oakes denies all the allegations.
The plaintiffs initially estimated the alleged misappropriation at €1.076 million. After Oakes identified errors in the calculations and supporting material during the hearing, Evans-Freke filed a corrective affidavit reducing the estimate to €855,000. The judgment records that he said he had transferred a total of €3,407,901 to Oakes from 2004 to 2014, including her remuneration; that figure is his estimate, not a finding by the court.
The proceedings began in July 2014. On an interim, without-notice basis, the court then restrained Oakes from removing, dealing with or diminishing the value of assets up to €1.076 million. A later order allowed specified monthly living expenses, a payment towards a debt and legal costs. The judgment also records a subsequent order permitting the sale of a property in Glandore, with conditions on the proceeds.
In considering the injunction application, the judge accepted that the plaintiffs had adequately set out their claim and that Oakes had assets in the jurisdiction. He inferred from the evidence—including her departure from West Cork, withdrawals of funds from an Irish bank account and omissions from an asset affidavit—that there was a risk of assets being disposed of to defeat the claim if she were not restrained.
The judge rejected Oakes’s argument that shortcomings in the plaintiffs’ initial disclosure, including not exhibiting the payment notebooks, amounted to an abuse sufficient to refuse relief. He also rejected her challenge to the strength of the plaintiffs’ evidence, which included indirect accounts of payments and documentation not yet formally proved. The ruling notes that hearsay may be admitted on interlocutory applications and that Oakes had provided little or no evidence supporting her denial.
The decision concerns interim relief only. The court expressly left the underlying dispute undecided and said it would hear the parties on the appropriate terms of the injunction.