Wife of former Tuskar director jointly liable for €8.5m judgment

Judge rules Noreen Hynes, wife of Alan Hynes, was legally entitled to six loans

Noreen Hynes:  Judge said   she provided no evidence in relation to the alleged oral agreement that the couple would not be pursued for any outstanding balances once the properties had been sold. Photograph: Aidan Crawley
Noreen Hynes: Judge said she provided no evidence in relation to the alleged oral agreement that the couple would not be pursued for any outstanding balances once the properties had been sold. Photograph: Aidan Crawley

The wife of an accountant and property investor is liable along with her husband for an €8.5 million judgment sought against them by a financial institution, the High Court has ruled. Noreen Hynes, wife of the former director of failed Tuskar property group Alan Hynes, did not satisfy Ms Justice Caroline Costello that she had any defence to a judgment application by Ennis Property Finance (EPF) against the couple.

The judge said she was a party who was legally and beneficially entitled to six loans given to the couple between 2003-2007 for property developments in Dublin and Wexford. Mr Hynes had not defended the case. The loans were originally given by Bank of Scotland Ireland (BoSI) and in 2015 they were assigned to Ennis Property Finance.

Ms Hynes argued there had been an oral agreement with BoSI that once the couple co-operated with the appointment of a receiver over the properties, which were sold and the proceeds applied to their debt, the bank would not have recourse to the Hyneses for any outstanding sums on the loans.

She also claimed the properties were not sold for their full value – €3.35 million was obtained for them. After receivers expenses and property management expenses were deducted, a sum of €2.8 million was applied to their debt. By March 2014, the outstanding debt stood at €7.2 million, with daily interest running at more than €1,500.

READ SOME MORE

Ms Justice Caroline Costello said Ms Hynes had provided no valuations of the properties to support her evidence that they were undervalued.

She also provided no evidence in relation to the alleged oral agreement that the couple would not be pursued for any outstanding balances once the properties had been sold. There was also no handwriting expert evidence provided to back up Ms Hynes’s claim that she had not signed one of the six loan facility documents, she added.