Developer's wife to get hearing over personal guarantee … 36463.html

From 2007: … 21641.html

That woman directed a number of companies that built shoeboxes in Dublin. You would think it was a one off only.

She was legally responsible at least in part for the rampant speculation and hideous dereliction of Benburb Street just off the North Quays. Visible from the Heuston Luas line. … y26201.asp

Dereliction photo essay.

A defence straight out of the FF politicians handbook of excuses. Next up ‘the dog ate my legal advice’. Come on missus, you are an adult for heavens sake

The bank has an obligation to make sure she has independent legal advice?

Come again? I thought she had an obligation to make sure she has…

oh hell.

The number of builders wives who are co directors of the builders company(ies) is very high, many of whom also seem to have de family home in their exclusive names. Naturally one never needs to satisfy oneself as to anything when one is a mere director but a guarantee is different it seems.

This one will be interesting to say the least. Will the wise Justice Peter Kelly take this one himself one wonders ??

In Galway, developers housewives were considered royalty.

I was in a mood for days when I saw that cover in the shops.

Please don’t tell me that really existed.

Wasn’t there a case a few years ago of a wife, who with her husband was a company director? She claimed that she was a director only in name, that she knew nothing about, and had no involvement in, the running of the company? IIRC, she was told that being a director meant she had to inform herself of her duties and liabilities and that the 'lil ‘ol wifey’ defence was no defence.

I didn’t know the ballinasloe horsefair was on the fashion circuit.

It was **one of two magazines **that glossily ooooohed and aaaahhhhed over the Developers Wives of Galway and sought photoshoots of their mansions etc. The Other was Upstairs Downstairs Magazine

The Galway Now piece was quite recent, post credit crunch in fact … way-proud/

It was shot in Harrmacks hotel, the 12, For a body based in Harrmack HQ with a Harrmack email address seeing as Harrmacks sales and marketing director runs it. It mainly ran charity balls for developers wives.

only in galway

something like that would never happen in Dublin or any other large town in ireland

It’s the October 2007 cover →


The case you are referring involved the sale of the Durty Nellie’s establishment at Bunratty. The late Justice Mella Carroll gave very short shrift to the wife’s ‘defence’ — and gave her a lecture on a director’s duties.

Haven’t time to read it now -but I think is the case that sets up the hurdle this woman will have to vault.
Paragraphs 60 & 61 of the Judgment are the important ones.

thank you LL - that makes fascinating reading!
Why can’t there be as much common sense and plain speaking in our courts as was shown in this one or as is shown daily in the Commercial Court?
A few more reports like that and I’d almost be ready to believe our judges are worth their salaries - apart from Catherine Nevin’s mate of course.

There is no implication whatsoever that Mrs O’N will emply the range of defences that Mrs Porrit tried on.

from LL’s link/

No it isn’t. It has no relevance. The arguments in this case are set out here: … icle_1.pdf

Ah my learned friends know better. :stuck_out_tongue:

Actually Mrs O Neill has said that her involvement in her husband’s affairs and the effective mortgaging of her home were a ‘mere formaility’

That aint what the law on directors’ duties says. Some aspects of this lady’s defence are on all fours with that of Mrs. Porrit - as I suspect she will find out.

Don’t be surprised if Peter Kelly trots out a section of the late Mella Lynch’s judgment in making his decision. But he will be completely fair.

You guys betting men ?

Edit: It would of course be outrageous to sugget that a bank woud consciously avoid giving advice as to obtaining legal advice to protect family assets or home should things go belly-up. Or would it ? :angry:

What? Seriously, that sentence makes no sense.

Great quotes from that link, LL, thank you! Here’s a classic:

" The day has long since passed since married women were classified with infants and persons of unsound mind as suffering from a disability so far as responsibility for their acts was concerned, or since a married woman could escape criminal responsibility on the grounds that she acted under the influence of her husband."

F**k, that description would apply today to most of the Frontline audience.

As to the bet, please lay out your proposed terms…