The High Court has refused to dismiss a property dispute concerning ownership of the East End Hotel on Main Street in Portarlington, finding that significant factual issues remain to be determined at trial.
Patrick Martin claims that he and his brother Noel Martin each own 50% of the commercial property as tenants in common. Noel Martin says Patrick's interest was transferred to him under an agreement reached when their property partnership was dissolved.
Ms Justice Bolger, in a judgment dated July 14, 2026, rejected Noel Martin's application to have the case dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being an abuse of process or being bound to fail.
The brothers had operated a property business together for years before deciding in 2021 to dissolve the partnership and divide its assets. While the dissolution itself is agreed, Patrick Martin says proposed arrangements for dividing the properties never progressed beyond unsigned drafts. Noel Martin maintains that a binding agreement had been reached and says the parties acted on it.
The court noted that the affidavit evidence and exhibits exceeded 1,000 pages and contained extensive allegations, counter-allegations and conflicting accounts. Several draft agreements from 2021 and 2023 were never signed.
Noel Martin also relied heavily on statements Patrick Martin made to Revenue and NAMA indicating that the hotel property was to pass to Noel. Patrick said those statements reflected his expectation that a negotiated division of assets would eventually be completed, rather than proof that a binding transfer had already occurred.
Bolger J held that those statements were insufficient to terminate the case before discovery and oral evidence. She said allegations that Patrick Martin had approached the court with "unclean hands" could not, at this stage, override his entitlement to fair procedures, including the opportunity to give evidence, cross-examine witnesses and obtain potentially relevant documents.
The substantive ownership dispute therefore remains unresolved and will continue toward trial. The judge's indicative view was that Patrick Martin should receive the costs of successfully resisting the dismissal application, although enforcement of those costs should be stayed until the overall proceedings conclude.