Couple entitled to full hearing of application by solicitors

Businessman Alan Hynes and his wife Noreen are entitled to a full hearing of an application by their former solicitors for a €2.3 million judgment, the High Court has ruled.

Seamus Maguire and Company Solicitors are seeking judgment for that amount against Alan Hynes and Noreen Hynes, trading as A&N Properties, arising from a cheque that was allegedly dishonoured.

It was claimed the cheque was signed by Mr Hynes, drawn down in the account of A&N Properties and made payable to the solicitors' firm client account in November 2007. The firm had acted for the defendants in relation to purchase of a site at Moongate, Clonard, Co Wexford.

It claimed the defendants sought in 2007 to borrow monies to fully acquire and refinance Moongate, which had been owned by a syndicate including Mr Hynes and his parents. The defendants, it is claimed, were sanctioned €3 million for that purpose by AIB.

It is claimed the monies were released to the solicitors on foot of an undertaking given by them, on behalf of the defendants, to the bank. The undertaking, it is claimed, provided all sums borrowed would be exclusively used on Moongate but, it is alleged, the monies released to the firm by the bank were diverted towards the purchase of another property.

The firm says the defendants acknowledged the monies were owed to it in relation to the loans advanced concerning Moongate. A cheque for €2.3 million was made out to the firm and held by the firm at the defendants request, it is claimed.

The defendants had, at the time, said they lacked the funds for payment, and would advise the firm when they had money in place for payment, it is claimed. However, the cheque amount was never paid and the entire amount is due and owing to the firm, it is claimed.

While the firm sought summary judgment, it indicated to the court it would not resist the case going to a full hearing.

The defendants dispute the claim, and dispute the cheque was dishonoured.

In a sworn statement Mr Hynes rejected any suggestion that instructions were given to the firm for any money to be transferred to solicitors acting for parties selling the other property.

Lawyers for Mrs Hynes also argued the claim should be dismissed on grounds including there was no evidence the cheque had been dishonoured.

In his ruling Mr Justice Paul McDermott said the defendants had raised an arguable defence to the claim such as entitled them to a full hearing on the matter. However, he was not satisfied the defendants had established a basis upon which to dismiss the solicitors’ claim.