A High Court judge has directed that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should be sent two judgments given in proceedings where a woman was found to have fraudulently obtained her mother’s home.
The direction was made by Mr Justice Brian Cregan in relation to proceedings where he found that Marie Gibson was the victim of a fraud committed against her by her daughter, Pauline Gibson.
At the High Court on Wednesday, Hugh O’Flaherty, for Marie Gibson, said his client was delighted at the outcome of the proceedings.
While Pauline Gibson, who did not participate in the action and who the court heard is now estranged from her mother, was his client’s “flesh and blood”, she had no objection to the matter being referred to the DPP, counsel said.
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
The music of 2024: Our critics’ verdicts on the best albums and acts of the year
‘One Christmas Day my brother set me on fire’: seven writers spill their most bizarre Yuletide yarns
Kellie Harrington fought hard for the dream ending she well deserved
The judge was satisfied his decision be sent to the DPP, who will decide on whether or not to bring criminal charges against Pauline Gibson. There was no objection to the court’s decision.
The court deferred making a final decision on whether to refer the two judgments, where he also made findings against solicitor Kevin O’Gorman, to the Legal Services Regulation Authority (LSRA), Revenue Commissioners and Law Society.
Negligent
Mr O’Gorman, who advised the parties regarding a loan agreement relating to the plaintiff’s home, was found by the court in its judgments to have been negligent in the performance of his duties towards Marie Gibson.
The judge, who noted that the LSRA and Law Society are aware of the case and had representatives in court, said he wanted clarification on certain legal issues before making any final decision on referring his findings to those bodies.
Eugene Gleeson SC, for Mr O’Gorman, said his client would prefer if the actions were not referred to the various bodies. Counsel said his client is no longer a man of means and has already suffered enough given the proceedings against him were widely publicised.
The proceedings arose out of an alleged fraudulent transfer of the property between Pauline Gibson and her parents Marie and John Gibson. Arising out of the fraud, Marie Gibson, who is in her 80s, sued Pauline Gibson, Mr O’Gorman, Promontoria Oyster DAC, which held the charge, and a receiver it appointed over the plaintiff’s home at Castletymon Green, Coolock, Dublin.
Last year, in the first of his two judgments, the judge set aside the transfer of the property from Marie and John Gibson to Pauline Gibson, which occurred in 2003 but was not discovered until 2017, shortly after John’s death. He found the transfer was fraudulent.
Defrauded
The court also found Mr O’Gorman was negligent in the performance of his duties towards Marie Gibson. The judge said Pauline Gibson had defrauded her parents out of their family home after she arranged for the transfer of that property to herself.
Marie Gibson claimed that in 2003 her daughter asked for a loan to help renovate Pauline’s then-family home at Fortfield Road, Terenure. However, the court held that Pauline Gibson forged her parents’ signatures on documents, resulting in the property being registered in her name.
Pauline Gibson obtained €190,000 from First Active Building Society by way of a mortgage on the property. She defaulted on the loan, which was subsequently acquired from EBS by Promontoria Oyster DAC.
Marie and her late husband were never properly advised about the transfer, nor did they get any benefit from the arrangement, the court held.
Mr O’Gorman had acted as solicitor for both parties to the transaction. The 2003 transfer was never stamped or registered by Mr O’Gorman, who allegedly sought to re-execute the transfer in 2009, the court found.
Promontoria appointed a receiver over the property, which the Gibsons acquired from Dublin City Council in 1977.
Damages awards
In a second judgment last month, the judge ordered the removal of a mortgage charge held by a financial fund over Marie Gibson’s home. Promontoria had opposed the removal of the charge. The judge said the transfer and the charge were void. He set them aside and made damages awards in favour of the plaintiff. The judge also found that the appointment of a receiver over the property was not valid.
The judge ruled that the Property Registration Authority should take steps to correct its register.
Pauline Gibson, the judge said, had engaged in a scheme in 2003 to defraud her parents out of their family home. The court marked that with an award of punitive or exemplary damages in the sum of €75,000 in favour of her mother.
Mr O’Gorman, the judge said, had behaved in “a grossly negligent manner” towards Marie Gibson and her late husband. The judge ruled that Mr O’Gorman should pay Marie Gibson €35,000 in damages.
The matter will return before the court later this month.
