Gorse Hill eviction ratified by court

Hitchens wrote: »

I must say I don't understand this case at all

1. The Supreme Court rules that the bank are the owners.

2. An eviction notice served

3. It is appealed to a lower court (even though the SP has given their ruling)

4. The appeal is refused.

5. A new appeal is being considered .......to where? yes, the Supreme Court


anyone able to explain this in laymans terms?

The Supreme Court only deal with points of law. It's been bouncing around the High Court in relation to various injunctions and orders. The piece linked looks like it was written by a law student describing the Campus Oil test.

Deleted User wrote: »

They believe that they're "worth it!" with so many knowledgeable contacts in the right places, this could go on for years.

And if Blake doesn't get what he want's he alludes to suicide. Legal arguments must be running thin if they're resorting to emotional ones




Speaking to Marian Finucane on RTE Radio 1, Mr O’Donnell was asked by the host as to why his family had not simply walked away from the €7 million house, given that they owed Bank of Ireland “some €60 million in debts”.


“Well there are people that do let it go and end up hanging themselves,” he retorted.



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/gorse-hill-well-still-be-living-there-next-year-blake-odonnell-31152750.html

Doubt had been cast on his credibility because of his failure to reveal that he earns a £120,000-a-year consultancy fee for managing an office block in London, which had been bought at the height of the success of his property empire, while he had been “evasive” on other issues.

In addition, Mr O’Donnell had claimed all of the couple’s creditors – not just Bank of Ireland and AIB – had been told about their move to London late last year to a house bought in Westminster in London in 2007 for £10 million.

“I cannot accept this. Had it been the truth, the O’Donnells would have copies of the letters and would have exhibited them,” said the judge, while Mr O’Donnell’s denial that he had applied for a renewal of his Irish solicitor’s practising licence was not “plausible”.

http://ukbusinessproperty.co.uk/news/o-donnell-s-bankruptcy-petition-fails




^^Lets not forget this; it's far from poor they are

In order to comprehend the ownership structure of Gorse Hill, you would need a legal degree - it is bound up in Trust -that trust is a Limited Company based in the Isle of Man, and the Trust has two shareholdings, each issued at a value of £1, - ownership is vested and the Trust has a complex arrangement with the O'Donnells whereby they get to live in Gorse Hill but the Trust holds Gorse Hill as an Asset..

So, the Legal arguments are between BOI, who claim ownership through Mortgage default, The Isle of Man Trust who claim ownership, The Trustees and The O'Donnells - far from clear cut and far from simple to unravel. Mr O'Donnell was and is a very bright Lawyer well used to complex ownership structures and so, he has an argument to make that the other side has to disprove. That could take a bit of doing.

That's why it's still ongoing, and it could well be ongoing for a good while longer.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's if you buy the utter bs.

Bet the ownership wasn't so complex with years needed to untangle it when they wanted all that money drawn down using it as security.

That then leads to the question of who or what entity drew down the funds and thereby is liable for the repayment of the monies - The Trust, which is a Limited Company, The Trustees, or the O'Donnells or some other body.

It might look like utter BS, but it's a legal structure, and it has to proven, under Law, that it is within the BOI's rights to take possession of the property. The O'Donnels are also within their rights to counter-argue for as long as they have an argument the Courts find credible enough to deserve a hearing.

I don't have much interest either way in the outcome, I'm just trying to explain why it could well take a fair while to sort and isn't as clear cut as people seem to believe..