The High Court has found that €280,000 paid by Della Kerrigan to Jacqueline Keenaghan in 2010 was a loan, after rejecting the defendants’ claim that the money was an unsolicited gift.
In a judgment delivered on 15 January 2019, Ms Justice Murphy said the loan had no specified repayment date. The court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs Keenaghan had asked Ms Kerrigan for help during her family’s financial difficulties and promised to repay every penny.
The payment was made in two bank drafts, for €200,000 and €80,000, payable to Mrs Keenaghan. Ms Kerrigan brought the claim seeking repayment. The defendants admitted receiving the money but said it had been given as a gift or charitable help, without a repayment date.
The court accepted the evidence of Ms Kerrigan and her sister, Celine, that Mrs Keenaghan had raised the possibility of help before Ms Kerrigan’s personal injury case settled. The judge found that the initial request was for €240,000 and that Mrs Keenaghan later sought a further €40,000. The judgment records that the defendants’ liabilities were about €180,000 to €190,000 and that money above those debts was spent on education and training for family members.
The judge rejected Mrs Keenaghan’s account that the sisters had offered the money without prompting and insisted that the defendants accept it as a gift. The court also accepted Ms Kerrigan’s evidence that Mrs Keenaghan requested two bank drafts so the payment could not be traced. It found the friendship between the women was close and that Ms Kerrigan trusted Mrs Keenaghan’s promises of repayment.
The judgment records that the parties disputed the conversations leading to the payment and later requests for repayment. It says that, after Ms Kerrigan asked about repayment in 2013 and 2014, the defendants maintained that the money was a gift. The court found that denial ruptured the friendship.
The court’s operative finding was that the money was a loan with no specified repayment date. The judgment also states that, if the payment had been found to be a gift, the court would have set it aside as an improvident transaction and found it unconscionable for the defendants to retain it. The source excerpt ends without setting out a separate formal repayment order or the precise terms of any final relief.