The High Court dismissed claims by property developer Robert Roche and Saltee Hotel (Wexford) Ltd. against Investec Bank plc and former bank employee Colm O’Riordan. In a judgment delivered on 12 June 2015, Ms Justice Kennedy found that the plaintiffs had not proved their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The proceedings followed disputes over lending facilities, property security and a proposed development at Kilmore Quay, Co. Wexford. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had sought to control Roche’s lands through a development scheme, misrepresented the bank’s intentions and impeded a €12 million offer for the Beak lands. Roche also claimed he was directed to buy the Saltee hotel to remove potential planning objectors.
The judge rejected those allegations. She found that the evidence did not establish that O’Riordan had coerced Roche or James Murphy into rejecting the anonymous bid, or that he had misrepresented the powers of his consultancy company, Orac Ltd. The court considered the bid’s anonymity, lack of financing information and the absence of supporting records, and found it lacked credibility. It concluded that the Seashore participants chose not to proceed with it.
The court also rejected the allegation that Roche had been told his security would not be enforced. The judge found no such representation had been made and, even if one had been, was not satisfied it induced Roche to enter the bank’s loan contracts. She found Roche had not been directed to buy the hotel for the alleged planning purpose. A claim that O’Riordan fraudulently misrepresented a separate €13 million bid was not pleaded with the required particulars, so the plaintiffs could not advance it at trial.
The judgment found that Roche made cash payments to O’Riordan, but that Investec was unaware of them. The judge was not satisfied that the bank knew of O’Riordan’s consultancy business or that he acted as the bank’s agent in receiving the payments. She found no proof that the payments caused Roche loss. The court also found no evidence of a partnership or joint venture between the bank and Roche: their relationship was that of lender and borrower.
The plaintiffs had sought, among other relief, rescission of loan facilities and securities, damages and removal of the receiver appointed over the hotel’s secured property. The judgment dismissed their claims and refused related relief insofar as it arose from matters raised in the hearing and statement of claim. The court decided the case on its merits and did not determine the defendants’ argument that the claims were statute-barred.