The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Cobh businessman Vincent Keaney against the dismissal of his claims concerning a proposed Titanic-themed bar and restaurant venture and later property transactions.
In a judgment delivered on 5 April 2017, Ms Justice Dunne said the appeal gave the Court no basis to overturn the High Court’s decision. The appeal concerned the dismissal of claims against James Sullivan, Michael Nolan and Julia Nolan. Claims against other defendants had earlier been struck out, and Keaney did not proceed against Joan Sullivan.
Keaney had argued, among other things, that a March 2000 document was a binding agreement with Nolan, that Sullivan had failed to act independently in dealings with potential investors, and that Keaney had an interest in the Tregan Building. He also challenged a 2004 deed transferring his interest in the Scott’s Building to Nolan and his wife. These were allegations and appeal submissions, not findings in Keaney’s favour.
The High Court had found that the March document was a draft, not a concluded agreement. It held that the parties’ agreement was instead in a letter sent by Nolan on 19 July 2000 and signed by Keaney the following day. The High Court also found that Keaney had not accepted the offer concerning the Tregan Building on the stated terms, which required him to contribute IR£100,000.
On Sullivan, the trial judge found there was no contract with Keaney. He found Sullivan had acted as a dealmaker, with both Keaney and Nolan aware of his involvement with Nolan, and that there was no evidence of negligence or a causal link between Sullivan’s conduct and Keaney’s alleged loss.
The High Court rejected Keaney’s challenge to the deed of assignment, finding it was signed on 30 September 2004 and that the stated consideration was Nolan taking responsibility for the property’s indebtedness. It found no attempt to avoid stamp duty. The trial judge also concluded that a 2003 deed of release barred any remaining claims it covered.
The Supreme Court said the High Court’s factual findings were supported by credible evidence and that the trial judge had properly explained his findings and reasoning. Applying the principles governing appeals from trial findings, it found no basis to disturb them and dismissed the appeal. The Court did not rehear the underlying claims or make new findings on the original allegations.