The High Court has ordered the trustees of Victory Christian Fellowship to disclose information about the fellowship’s assets and income, and about third party funding for their legal costs, following a €18,758,224.88 judgment in favour of Bank of Scotland Plc.
Ms Justice Donnelly made the disclosure orders on two post-judgment motions brought by the Bank. The underlying judgment, entered in January 2014, was against the defendants as trustees of the fellowship. The judge said the orders she was making related to them only in that capacity.
The Bank sought information about the fellowship’s assets, income, liabilities and expenditure. It said statements supplied by the trustees were incomplete and did not clarify the fellowship’s current position. The judge identified unresolved questions about whether the fellowship had ceased operating, whether gatherings at hotels involved new churches or the fellowship itself, and whether the trustees’ statement of affairs accurately reflected its position. She found that prior disclosure was needed before any oral examination of the trustees.
The second motion concerned the source and extent of funding for the trustees’ defence. In an April affidavit, Brendan Hade said former congregation members had made personal donations to the trustees to help pay legal fees. In a May affidavit, he said money collected for those fees had been credited to a bank account held by Victory Conference Centre Ltd, a company in which the trustees said they had no interest or involvement. The judge found a conflict in the accounts of the funding and said its source, purpose and extent required clarification.
The court ordered disclosure about the funders and funding arrangements, including details of the legal and beneficial ownership of Victory Conference Centre Ltd and correspondence between the company and the defendants. The defendants must swear and serve an affidavit confirming the information disclosed on the first motion and provide supporting documents. The judgment does not specify the deadline; the judge said she would discuss the period with counsel.
The judge did not decide that any funder was liable for the Bank’s costs. She said that question, including arguments about charitable intent and privilege, was premature and could arise in a later application. The court’s present orders require disclosure to help identify the funding and funders; any privilege claims over documents must be identified, with specific issues to be addressed later.