The Court of Appeal has dismissed a solicitor’s appeal against a €30,000 aggravated damages award arising from the transfer of an elderly couple’s home without their knowledge. It also dismissed the estate’s cross-appeal over costs in the underlying High Court proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 13 June 2024, concerns a €190,000 loan arranged in 2003 by Pauline Gibson, daughter of Marie and John Gibson. The High Court found that the couple did not sign the purported transfer of their home to Pauline and did not know it was being transferred. The loan proceeds went to Pauline or to settle her bank debt; the couple received nothing.
The High Court found that solicitor Kevin O’Gorman acted for both sides, failed to explain the transaction or advise Marie Gibson to obtain independent legal advice, and later altered documents and falsely attested signatures. It also found that Pauline Gibson procured forged signatures on documents. Pauline did not participate in the High Court proceedings, and a default judgment had been obtained against her.
After the transfer was registered in Pauline’s name, a receiver appointed by Promontoria (Oyster) DAC sought possession of the home. The High Court later held the charge registered against Marie Gibson’s folio and the receiver’s appointment void from the outset.
O’Gorman challenged the aggravated damages award, arguing that the evidence did not link his conduct to Marie Gibson’s emotional distress and that aggravated damages had not been pleaded. The Court of Appeal said the High Court was entitled to consider his conduct, including document alterations and knowingly false answers to interrogatories later sworn to by affidavit. It found no legal error and dismissed his appeal. The separate €5,000 compensatory award was not appealed.
The estate’s cross-appeal challenged the High Court’s allocation of costs among the parties. The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the trial judge’s discretion and dismissed the cross-appeal.
The court proposed that O’Gorman pay the costs of his appeal because the estate had succeeded against him. It proposed no order as to the costs of the cross-appeal. Parties were given 14 days to make written submissions on an alternative costs order; absent submissions, the proposed order would be made.