A woman obtained High Court orders setting aside her ex-husband’s transfer to others of valuable shares in his property rental company and freezing accounts to prevent him interfering with his assets or interests in the company.
The man was the 100 per cent owner of the company, with property assets worth more than €2 million, before purportedly transferring 60 per cent – 40 per cent to a woman, Ms A, and 20 per cent to Mr B, the son of a deceased business associate.
His wife initiated divorce proceedings in England more than five years ago which, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson said, had a “long and tortuous” trajectory, particularly concerning disclosure of documents.
Because the man had not complied with English court orders for financial reliefs, the woman applied to the High Court for various orders against him, including to set aside the share transfer, pending a full hearing.
‘A childish, criminal act’: Greens dug up and Palestinian flags planted at Trump’s Doonbeg golf course
Armagh man who caused baby ‘catastrophic’ brain injuries jailed for at least 20 years
Ireland v Italy: Simon Easterby shakes up team for Six Nations final round
How crucial are US pharma firms to Ireland? And what happens if Trump entices them home?
In a judgment published this week, setting out her ruling given last October, Ms Justice Jackson said the share transfer document was signed on the same date that the man’s English solicitor emailed him to inform him of orders made days earlier in the divorce proceedings.
The judge was “somewhat confused” by documents which appeared to indicate the man was a 100 per cent shareholder in the company in 2023, long after the share transfer date. She would be seeking explanations for that and other matters when the matter is next before her, she said.
The man had referred in court documents to an acrimonious history of issues between him and his wife and said he had withdrawn completely from the English court process.
He said, among other things, the company was lately funded by Ms A who had administered it for some five years and was a 40 per cent shareholder for about three years.
The judge was “at a loss to understand” his assertion that he had very limited information about the company when, except for the disputed share transfer, he was the 100 per cent shareholder at all material times. She had directed production of the share transfer agreement but that had not been done.
The judge indicated at a previous hearing she was prepared to set aside the share transfers but Ms A and Mr B were entitled to make opposing submissions.
Mr B subsequently attended court but did not provide an affidavit. Mr B, who “regrettably faces life challenges”, had said he did not want the shares and appeared to know little about the transactions, the judge noted.
Ms A, who provided an affidavit and attended court, said the share transfer was to pay her for services rendered to the company. Her affidavit made no reference to her having funded the company, the judge said.
There was “a complete dearth” of a paper trail concerning the purported share transfers which would in any way explain them either in accordance with the sworn statements of the man or Ms A, she said.
While the man had said he was not aware of the English court orders, he was aware of the proceedings and that all his assets were “in play” in those, she said.
The proximity of the purported share transfers with the English court’s order “does give rise to suspicion” and there was no evidence they were for valuable consideration.
It made “no legal or commercial sense” how a transfer to Ms A of a 40 per cent shareholding, said to amount to assets of €800,000, would be justified for a management role for a three-year period which the court accepted has continued since.
The judge said she would confirm orders setting aside the share transfers and grant freezing orders in respect of any disposal concerning the man’s shareholding and assets or interests in the company.
