The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Dermot Calvert and Martina Harty against High Court orders concerning two properties in Garryowen, cash and a Volkswagen Passat. The High Court had found the assets were acquired in whole or in part with proceeds of crime and made orders restricting their disposal.
The appeals concerned orders made on 15 January and 19 February 2025. The first appeal challenged the finding that the Criminal Assets Bureau had met the civil standard of proof under the Proceeds of Crime Acts. The second challenged the appointment of a receiver with power to sell a partly renovated property at Cloughan Court.
The Court of Appeal said the appellants had not engaged with the evidence or explained how the High Court had erred. They did not appeal findings concerning the house at 26 Singland Crescent or the Passat. The High Court had found that, apart from money contributed by Stacey Calvert from a personal injuries award, Dermot Calvert funded the purchase and renovation of the house and construction of an apartment behind it with proceeds of crime. The judgment put the likely renovation and construction cost at €100,000. The High Court also found that the car had been bought with his proceeds of crime.
The remaining challenge included cash seized in searches of the Singland Crescent apartment: €17,145 and £30 in 2019, and €5,860 in 2021. The Court of Appeal noted that the High Court had rejected explanations linking the cash to insurance compensation and other sources. It had found Dermot Calvert to be an established drug dealer who received substantial cash from that activity, and found that the evidence showed it was more probable than not that proceeds from his drug dealing funded the assets.
On Cloughan Court, the appellants argued that the High Court had not adequately considered equitable principles governing receivership. The Court of Appeal observed that those arguments had not been made to the High Court and that the appeal did not identify which relevant factor had been overlooked or what should happen to the property instead.
The court noted that Cloughan Court was incomplete, unfit to live in and uninsured. It found the evidence did not establish that it was the intended family home of the appellants and Harty’s children, and said there was no evidence that the couple had the means to finish or insure it.
The appeals were dismissed. The Bureau is presumptively entitled to its costs. The appellants may file submissions seeking a different costs order within 14 days of electronic delivery; the Bureau may reply within a further 14 days.