The Supreme Court has dismissed Padraig O’Halloran’s appeal against a High Court judgment holding him personally liable for €1,575,500 in damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit involving the Buccament Bay resort project in St Vincent.
In a judgment dated 1 November 2019, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the High Court judge had evidence to support his findings that Mr O’Halloran repeatedly assured Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd and Harlequin Hotels and Resorts Ltd that the project’s first phase would be ready by 1 July 2010. The Supreme Court held that the appeal did not justify overturning those findings.
The High Court had found that, from summer 2009, Mr O’Halloran knew or was reckless as to whether the deadline could be met, yet continued to give assurances and seek increased payments. It also found he diverted substantial sums from the ICE Group, which he controlled, to Irish accounts and other purposes. The Supreme Court reviewed evidence about the project’s progress, payments and emails concerning information given to Harlequin, and concluded the trial judge was entitled to accept that evidence.
The award was limited to payments the High Court treated as Irish payments, including transfers to Mr O’Halloran’s Irish accounts, payments connected with a wedding, and two payments to his father’s bank account for which the High Court found Mr O’Halloran liable. The Supreme Court did not reopen the damages calculation, which it said had not been challenged as incorrect.
The appeal court’s role was to consider whether evidence supported the trial judge’s findings and whether the inferences were fairly drawn; it did not retry the case or reassess witness credibility. The Supreme Court said the uncertain contract price and disputes over the project’s profitability did not alter the central issues of the representations and the removal of funds.
The High Court had dismissed the claim against Donal O’Halloran, finding no evidence he had engaged in unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court’s judgment concerned Padraig O’Halloran’s appeal. It dismissed that appeal and directed that counsel be heard on the form of the order and any ancillary orders arising from the time since the High Court judgment.