Some Advice Needed Please
Comments
-
Question about carrying forward losses.
If I carry forward losses from one year to the next, if I don't buy or sell anything, do I still have to submit a return to carry the losses through to the next year again?
0 -
APPROVED
[2023] IEHC 156
BETWEEN
THE HIGH COURT
CORMAC LOHAN
(PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE OF LOHAN & CO. SOLICITORS)
AND
STEPHEN HATTON MARINA HATTON
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 31 March 2023
INTRODUCTION
1. The within proceedings were commenced by way of summary summons. The plaintiff subsequently issued a motion seeking to enter judgment. The plaintiff has since accepted that the proceedings should be remitted to plenary hearing. This judgment addresses the conditions upon which such remittal is to be made.
2018 No. 899 S
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2. The plaintiff in these proceedings is a solicitor. The proceedings were instituted by way of summary summons and seek to recover a sum of €381,277.43 said to be due and owing to the plaintiff in connection with legal services provided to the defendants. The legal services related to High Court litigation in respect of a mortgage in favour of Danske Bank (“the Danske Bank litigation”).
3. The proceedings are predicated on a bill of costs dated 8 March 2017. The bill of costs is addressed to the two defendants and to a company known as Edenfarms Ltd. The solicitor’s professional fee is in an amount of €170,000 (plus VAT). It has to be said that the level of detail provided in the solicitor’s bill of costs is sparse, especially given the very significant sums involved.
4. The solicitor’s bill of costs is accompanied by copies of the fee notes furnished by senior and junior counsel to the solicitor. Counsels’ fees are in an aggregate amount of €136,100 (plus VAT).
5. It should be observed that there is nothing in the limited papers before the court which indicates that the defendants had been informed in advance that the legal fees would be so high. The only figure in respect of fees which had been identified in the initial letter of engagement, dated 4 September 2015, had been a figure of €10,000 which the solicitor had requested as an upfront payment. Whereas it might be that the fee estimate could not have been more precise at that early stage of the Danske Bank litigation, it is not obvious from the limited papers before the court that the defendants were ever provided with an updated fee estimate.
6. The legal fees have not been adjudicated upon by the Taxing Master of the High Court. It does not appear from the limited correspondence which has been
3
exhibited that the defendants had been informed at the time that they had an entitlement to refer the bill of costs for independent adjudication by the Taxing Master. (The adjudication function is now performed by the Office of the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator pursuant to the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The relevant provisions commenced on 7 October 2019).
7. The defendants purported to make a complaint to the Law Society in respect of the plaintiff on 12 September 2018. The purported complaint raises a range of matters, some of which relate to the bill of costs. By letter dated 7 December 2018, the Law Society wrote to the defendants as follows:
“As Mr. Lohan has issued Court proceedings, under S13 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, the Law Society is not in a position to investigate this matter further until the proceedings are determined. When the proceedings have concluded and if there are issues which the Court did not deal with, you can write to the Law Society again, raising the complaints you would like to be investigated, which were not dealt with by the Court.”
8. The within proceedings were instituted on 25 July 2018, that is, prior to the complaint to the Law Society. The application to enter summary judgment was listed, initially, for hearing on 2 February 2023. On that date, the matter had to be adjourned because of the fact that written legal submissions had not been exchanged as had previously been agreed by the parties. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff was asked by the court to consider, first, whether it might be necessary to apply to amend the pleadings having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O’Malley [2019] IESC 84, [2020] 2 I.L.R.M. 423; and, secondly, the implications, if any, of Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.
9. On the adjourned date, 13 March 2023, counsel indicated that the plaintiff now accepted that the matter should be remitted to plenary hearing. The court
4
canvassed with counsel for the plaintiff whether his client would be prepared to agree to the referral of the bill of costs for adjudication. Counsel, having taken instructions, confirmed that his client did so agree.
10. Counsel on behalf of the defendants did not raise any substantive objection to the proceedings being remitted to plenary hearing but did point to the delay in the proceedings to date. Counsel for the defendants also emphasised that, aside entirely from any question of the adjudication of the quantum of the legal costs, his clients were maintaining the defence, outlined on affidavit, that there was a collateral agreement whereby the costs were to be borne by another company, Moralltach Ltd.
DECISION
11. For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that the proceedings should be remitted to plenary hearing. First, it is apparent from the affidavits that there is a significant factual dispute as to whether or not some form of collateral agreement had been entered into between the parties to the effect that a company known as Moralltach Ltd would provide a loan to cover the entirety of the defendants’ outstanding indebtedness to Danske Bank and that any legal costs would be discharged by Moralltach Ltd. This is strenuously denied by the plaintiff. This factual dispute cannot be resolved on the basis of affidavit evidence alone. Secondly, it may be doubtful as to whether the summary summons, in its current form, complies with the requirements for summary proceedings as identified by the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O’Malley. Thirdly, a question mark arises as to whether the bill of costs is sufficiently detailed to allow the plaintiff to rely upon the provisions of
5
Section 2 of the Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849 (sometimes described as the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849). This provision has to be read in conjunction with Section 68(4) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The interaction of these provisions has been considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in Dorgan v. Spillane [2016] IECA 84.
12. It will be a matter for the trial judge to consider all of these various issues and it should be emphasised that no finding is being made at this stage of the proceedings other than that the threshold of a credible or arguable defence has been met and that summary judgment is not appropriate.
13. The proceedings will, accordingly, be remitted to plenary hearing. It is a condition of this remittal that the defendants are entitled, if they so wish, to refer the legal costs for adjudication. As indicated, the plaintiff has confirmed that he has no objection to such a condition. If the defendants wish to avail of the opportunity to refer the legal costs for adjudication, they have liberty to apply to this court within a period of three months from today’s date. If such an application is made, then a formal order referring the legal costs for adjudication will be made pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
14. The objective of allowing for the possibility of adjudication is to ensure that the defendants are not prejudiced by the lack of detail in the bill of costs sent to them nor by the (seeming) lack of an accurate fee estimate. It would seem unfair were the defendants to be shut out by time-limits from seeking an adjudication of the legal costs. This is especially so in circumstances where there is nothing in the limited correspondence currently before the court which indicates that the defendants were advised of their entitlement to refer the legal costs for taxation or adjudication.
6
15. It should be emphasised that it is ultimately a matter for the defendants to decide, with the benefit of advice from their new lawyers, whether they wish to refer the legal costs for adjudication. The defendants may wish, instead, to defend the proceedings solely on the separate ground that some sort of an agreement had been reached with Moralltach Ltd and that accordingly they do not have any liability in relation to legal costs.
CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER
16. These proceedings will be remitted to plenary hearing pursuant to Order 37, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The defendants have liberty to defend the proceedings in general, and this is not confined to any specific grounds of defence identified in the replying affidavits. It is a condition of the remittal that the defendants have liberty to refer the legal costs for adjudication.
17. I propose to make the following directions in relation to the exchange of pleadings. The plaintiff should deliver a statement of claim within six weeks of today’s date (this extended period is intended to make allowance for the Easter vacation). The defendants will have a period of four weeks thereafter to deliver a defence. The plaintiff will have a period of two weeks thereafter within which to deliver a reply.
18. The parties have liberty to apply to me for further directions at that stage, or, alternatively, they may prefer simply to issue any motions in the ordinary way in relation to matters such as particulars or the discovery of documents. As explained, the defendants have liberty to apply to me within three months of today’s date to seek an order referring the legal costs for adjudication.
0 -
R E G I S T R Y A i nm a i l
- 2 6 OCT 202 2
OF COMPANIES
Company Reg. No. C73540
(13540) 18.
Form K
COMPANIES ACT
otification ofchanges among directors or comps y secretarv or in t! presentation of the company and the directors' asent a n d declar
appointment
pursuant to Articles 139(1), 139(5) and 146
Name ofCompany: Moralltach Global PLC
Delivered by: Tomas Brennan, Clonmullen, Bunclody, Co. Wexford Irish, Passport No. PV4762975
gistrar ofCompanies:
in for
Section A- Change in directors or company secretary orlegal representationofla company
tach Global PLC hereby gives notice in accordanc panies Act that:
the
Eddie Kelly of Courtnacuddy, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford, heland, Irish,Passport No. PQ6221$64, is to be appointed as Company Secretary
ve date ofchange (b) 10/10/2022 ..
Signaturé lomas.
Brown Director/Secretarv,
mar /11
0 -
REGISTRY
B
(13540/11.
AS - 4 MAR 2023
0 2 DEC 2022
• Orongh:?.
O FCOMPANIES
No. of Company ...C73540
FormO
COMPANIES ACT (CAP. 386)
Notification of change in registered office of a compar Pursuant toArticle 79 (2)
Name of Company ..
Moralltach Global PLC
Delivered by ...
Tomas Brennan, Clonmullen,Bunclody, Co. Wexford
egistrar ofCompanies: *alltach Global PLC
hereby g ves notice in accordance with Article 79(2) of the Companies Act, 1995 that the company has changed its registered office t o :Junction Business Centre, 1st FloorTriq Laurdes,
St Julian's, SWQ 2334, Malta
Eliecuvt Date of Change ..14th November 2022
Dated this 14th
Name and signature.. Director/Secretarv/Mana
. day of ... ...November... of the year 2022
0 -
Veritas in lay mans language Loan was sueing Hattons for the amount 381,227 for legal fees .I remember Hattons They where Eden Farms there in the portfolio. So can you explain the rest in simple terms.What where the legal fees for and I see Mortallatach s name there too What's going on . Danaske bank where do they come in .What legal fees for
0 -
Advertisement
-
Well is interesting as Hattons were one of the larger “assets” that Moralltach stated were on their balance sheet. Interesting as Lohan who I believe works for Moralltach is taking one of their largest customers to court for fees owed. Looks like things are unravelling quickly!
The Danske debt I assume is the mortgage company for Hattons farm which then begs the question how can this be a Moralltach “asset” when Danske will ultimately have first call on the farm in the event of default.
0 -
The other posts are from the MBR website where after many years Moralltach have started filing including accounts!!
0 -
Legal fees I assume are for legal work on the Danske debt. Which being as Moralltach claim on their own website to offer the following:-
For the original property owner:
- The debt is repaid and the probability of losing the property to foreclosure is reduced;
therefore unclear why there should be any legal claim. Either way strange but not surprising
0 -
-
I am just wondering if anyone in the chat forum has been duped by the aforementioned individuals above, or know of anyone who has been duped by these same individuals. Please PM me. Thank you.🙏
0 -
Advertisement
-
GAZETTE
The High Court - Petition No. 3SA/1995
Re: John Kieran Brennan Solicitor formerly practising as John Kieran Brennan at 20, North Main Street, Wexford and under the style
and title of P.J. O'Flaherty &Son at Mayfield, Enniscorthy,
Co. Wexford.
By order of9 October 1995 (as amended by order of 13 November
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996
1995) thePresident of the High Court ordered that the name ofJohn Kieran Brennan be struck offthe Roll
of Solicitors.
He further ordered that the said John Kieran Brennan make restitution to the Law Society of Ireland for
compensation monies paid to clients of the said John Kieran Brennan by
the Society's Compensation Fund in the amounts
of £85.575.68.
£82,366.77, €29,266.23 and £56,905.70 and granted Judgement to the Society against John Kieran Brennan for the sum of £254.114.38
being the total of these sums.
Thecosts of both the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee and the Petition were awarded to the Society when taxed and ascertained.
The Court had before it the report of the Disciplinary Committee of its hearing on 20 September 1994 in which the Committee found that there had been misconduct on the part of the Solicitor in that he had:
d . misappropriated substantial client funds:
b. falsified the books of account of his solicitor's practice so as to in some cases conceal, and in other cases to minimise, the apparent liabilitiest o clients:
.c by his dishonest conduct as a
solicitor caused substantial and on
going claims on. and payments to
be made out of, the Society's Compensation Fund:
d. breached the Solicitors Accounts Regulations No. 2 of 1984 by:
(i)
failing to pay into the relevant Client accounts monies
received for or on behalf of those clients. (Reg. 3):
31
11/13/23, 5:30 PM GAZETTE
(ii) withdrawing from the client account substantial monies
purportedly in respect of costs when either no bill ofcosts or written intimation of costs had been furnished to the client or the monies withdrawn were substantially in excess of the costs intimated to the client
by bill or otherwise (Reg. 7 (iv));
(in) wrongfully transferredclient monies from the ledger accounts of various clients to the ledger cards of other clients (Reg. 9);
(iv) wrongfully withdrew client monies so as to cause the client account to become overdrawn (Reg. 7);
(v) wrongfully withdrew client monies from the client account
(Reg. 7);
(vi) failed to keep proper books of account in relation to his practice (Reg. 10).
e. through his dishonesty in his practice had caused the Society to make payments out of its Compensation Fund totalling £814,372.41 as ofthe 31st day of July 1994;
.f produced to the Society accountant's reports in respect of his Enniscorthy and Wexford practices for his financial year ended 31st December 1990 showing a surplus of clients funds when he knew that the true situation was that there was a substantial deficit in his clients funds;
g. produced the said certificates to the Society in respect of his practice
for the financial year ended the 31st of December 1990 for the
purpose of misrepresenting to the Society that he had complied with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and so misleading the Society into believing he had complied with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and so misleading the Society;
The Gazette 1996
h. concealed from the Society's investigating accountant the deficit in clients funds duri
ng thecourse
of the investigation of his practice
pursuant to the Solicitors Accounts Regulations;
.i prevailed upon a client to withdraw a complaint to the Society, which complaint disclosed receipt by the Solicitor of £44,045.00 on behalf
of the client which had not been recorded in the books of account by the Solicitor;
.j misled the Society's Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on
19 September 1991 by representing to the Committee that he was not in a position to providean
explanation in relation to the
deficit recorded in the investigation report of 3 September 1991
because he did not devote
sufficient time to the accounting
side of his practice;
.k failedtoattendthemeetingof
the Compensation Fund Committee of 13 February 1992 when
required t odo so and when informed that the estimated deficit in relation to his practice as of 31 October 1991 amounted to £594,751.04;
.1 misled the High Court in representing to the High Court in an affidavit sworn 25 October 1991 that the deficit in client funds was between £150.000 and €250,000;
m. falsified the books ofaccount of his practice in relation to nine clients named in the report of the Disciplinary Committee to conceal adeficit in client funds;
n.
misappropriated the monies of four clients named in the report of the Disciplinary Committee in the
amounts of £85,575.68, £82,366.77, £29,266.23 and £56.905.70respectivelycausing the Society to have to pay the
said amounts out of its Compensation Fund.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996
Compensation
Fund Payments
Out - December, 1 9 9 5
The following claim amounts were admitted by the Compensation Fund Committee and approved for payment
by the Council at its meeting in December 1995.
https://user-wbvdowa.cld.bz/The-Gazette-1996/48#zoom=z
1/1
Michael Dunne. 63/65 Main Street, Blackrock,
Co. Dublin.
IRE 1.150.00
1.150.00
Compensation
Fund Payments Out - January, 1996
The following claim amounts were admitted by the Compensation Fund Committee and approved for payment by the Council at its meeting in
January 1996.
Francis G. Costello, 51 Donnybrook Road, Donnybrook,
Dublin 4.
IRE 6.125.00
6.125.00
Stamp Duty Public Office - New Procedures
Following areview of the cashhandling arrangements in the Stamp Duty Public Office, new procedures will take place from 5February. 1996. On and from that date, any cash payments for Stamp Duty or Companies Capital Duty must be made direct to the Cash Office.
An explanatory leaflet is available from theStamp Duty Office, Dublin 2orby telephoning the Stamp Duty Office at (01) 679 2777. Brendan Costigan, e x t 4574 or Donal Savage, extn. 4567, w
0 -
Attention to clause 11.5 attested to in the attached in the context of the message above! Draw your own conclusions!
0 -
You should be an investigative journalist!!
0 -
I agree 😅👏🏻👏🏻
0 -
The Barry Whyte article in July said the following on Brennan being struck off
“The other director about whom the NSX was concerned was Brennan himself, who it turns out was struck off as a solicitor in 1995, according to the January/February 1996 issue of the Law Society Gazette.
The notice describes how “the president of the High Court ordered that the name of John Kieran Brennan be struck off the roll of solicitors”, and described how Brennan would through his law firm have to “make restitution to the Law Society of Ireland for compensation monies paid to clients” through the society’s compensation fund.
They said in the notice that Brennan had engaged in “dishonest conduct as a solicitor”; that he had “misappropriated substantial client funds”; had “falsified books of account so as to in some cases conceal, and in other cases to minimise” the apparent liabilities to clients; and that the pay-out by the Law Society had come to more than £814,000.
It also concluded, amongst other findings, that he had “prevailed upon a client to withdraw a complaint” to the Law Society; “falsified the books of account” in order to “conceal a deficit in client funds” and “misled the High Court in representing to the High Court in an affidavit sworn 25 October 1991 that the deficit was between £150,000 and £250,000”.
Brennan doesn’t dispute that he was struck off, but insists that this was unfair. A letter from his solicitor, James Flynn, the former Taxing Master of the High Court, said that his strike-off was a miscarriage of justice.
Flynn said: “The simple fact [is] that he was illegally struck off from the legal profession. It actually beggars belief and I am in the process of having the same reversed.”
We are supposed to believe 28 years later that James Flynn is going to challenger the 20 breaches that are noted in the disciplinary notice!!? This looks about as clear cut as a case could be!!
No smoke without fire and steer well clear!!
0 -
The passage of time does not help Moralltach. As the tide goes out the truth is revealed. A quick recap:-
A)In the failed IPO in Australia the company claimed in their Information Memorandum
“What are the benefits of investing in the Company?
The benefits of investing in the Company include the following:
Asset portfolio valued at €650,000,000.
Experienced management team.
Energy Projects with existing supply contracts with the Government
the ESB
Debt Free
B) In financial statement they then stated that they had revenues and assets which subsequently 98% of the revenue and 77% of the assets have been reversed.
98% reversal of revenue in the H1 2018 statements to the NSX and on the NSX website. No revenue of any note has been recorded in any of the later sets of financials statements on the Maltese Business Registry (MBR) website.
The 77% reduction in assets can be seen in the MBR website for the financials year ended 31/12/28. The 77% reduction which reduces assets from Euro 219m to Euro 50m is not taken as a loss to P&L but as reversal of equity. The reduction in assets is described in the financial statement as “investment properties revoked”. The obvious questions being if investment properties can be revoked of this quantum which no cash received by the company and no P&L recorded why are these recorded as assets at all?
For anyone that has invested in this company or potentially would in the future the questions to ask at the AGM would be:-
- Could the remaining assets on the balance sheet be revoked in the future leaving the company with no assets?
- If not what is difference in nature with the remaining assets vs those that have been “revoked”?
- Are the company guaranteed to receive the economic benefits for the remaining on balance sheet items? That would mean that they are due to receive cash for the market value of the property at sale? Is this 100% guaranteed and if so why did this not happen on the 77% that were revoked?
- Why is the company receiving a 0% return on the assets recorded on balance sheet? Are they operating as a charity or they are not entitled to a return as they are not entitled to the economic benefits? If so why are they on balance sheet!?
- Have the management of Moralltach put a cent of their own money into the company in terms of equity? If so how much?
- How much money has been raised by selling shares for cash? What representation were given by management to those investors? Were they aware that 77% of the assets could be revoked? Are they aware of the status on the remaining 23%?
- How in 5 years from the NSX listing to now can the value of assets fall from Euro 650m in the IM (above) to todays Euro 50m with not a cent received in cash or revenue on those same assets?
- Does the company have any Governement contracts if so what and if so why no revenue?
- Who are this “experienced management” team!?
0 -
The mind boggles!!!
700,000,000 shares in existence.
Patrick Fitzpatrick legal case said he paid 0.25 cents a share which valued the company at 175mn!
C.50mn of assets on balance sheet values company at $0.07cents per share. This assumes that those assets are real of course.
0 -
Well in the accounts for 2021 a further €8m of properties have been “revoked”. No cash received, no loss booked and no revenue received!
€42m of assets left. 700m shares. Shares price between 6 cents and zero based on your view of assets. Now 81% of the assets recorded on balance sheet in Australia have been “revoked”. Cannot see any logic why this could not happen to the remaining “assets”.
Estimated share price Nil!!
0 -
James Flynn is no knight in shining armour, I believe he still acts for John Kieran Brennan and is basically bankrupt according to the two articles below. The web widens everyday of these colourful individuals, who tries to take everyone to court who stands in their way. This is their only hope of dragging people through the courts to get protection and as they cannot get protection from the CRO, because of failure to file accounts Etc.
Post edited by Milo1970 on0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Quite fitting that he would represent Brennan then!!
0 -
😂
The further one digs the worse this gets!!
0 -
Probably not much worse than at the start of the thread. On Page 2, five years ago, the information about Brennan being struck off was posted:
"Some of Brennan’s previous ventures have been unsuccessful, however. He had a solicitor’s practice in Bunclody but was struck off by the Law Society of Ireland in 1995. Moralltach’s finance director Nick Linnane has also come under regulatory scrutiny. In 2017, Chartered Accountants Ireland barred his accountancy practice, Nick Linnane & Co in Moate, Co Westmeath, from holding clients’ money or offering investment advice for five years."
0 -
Fair point!
1 -
I guess initially if you were being generous you could have given them the benefit of the doubt…..
0 -
We Would like to invite anyone who has been affected in any way or is currently an Investor in Moralltach Global Plc on the Chat Forum to attend a meeting of the investors of Moralltach Global Plc on Sunday January 21st 2024 commencing at 10am in Brady's Public House, Shankill, Co. Dublin D18 E1W0.
Please note that this meeting is STRICTLY for people who have been affected and Investors of Moralltach Global Plc Only.
Please PM me if you wish to attend. Thank you
0 -
at the bottom of the article - “written by Moralltach Global”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
