Sloyan Brothers directors to appear for cross-examination

High Court hears of alleged transfer of €4m asset from company to the family

Justice Peter Charleston said the matter that needed to be clarified was “what happened to the transfer of land and if there was a payment or not . . . It is important to hear what the defendants have to say.”
Justice Peter Charleston said the matter that needed to be clarified was “what happened to the transfer of land and if there was a payment or not . . . It is important to hear what the defendants have to say.”

Directors of Sloyan Brothers Ltd, a north Dublin-based building company, were ordered yesterday by the High Court to submit to a cross-examination over the alleged transfer of an asset worth €4 million out of the company.

The alleged asset transfer took place in February 2006 before the company was put into a members' solvent liquidation on March 3rd, 2007, under liquidator Barry Forrest.

Mr Forrest was removed in October 2012 and the Revenue Commissioners appointed accountant Aidan Garcia instead.

In the High Court yesterday senior counsel for Mr Garcia, Gary McCarthy, said he wished to cross-examine its former directors about what he called “discrepancies” in various statements produced during the liquidation of the company.

READ SOME MORE

He said his client wanted to know how a €4 million asset – a site in Cabinteely, Dublin 18 – was “transferred from the company to the Sloyan family” on February 24th, 2006.


'Unsatisfactory'
Mr McCarthy said his client believed explanations given about what happened were "unsatisfactory".

“We are concerned we don’t have the full picture,” he said.

Solicitor Gerry McCreevy for Sloyan Brothers Ltd denied any wrongdoing and said previous statements by its directors had been “consistent”.

Justice Peter Charleston ruled that three members of the Sloyan family should make themselves available for cross-examination: Seán Sloyan, Joseph Sloyan and Catherine Doherty.

Justice Charleston said the matter that needed to be clarified was “what happened to the transfer of land and if there was a payment or not . . . It is important to hear what the defendants have to say,” he said.