Developer’s wife awarded €9,000 a month expenses

In fairness, to a Senior Counsel or a Judge, €80k a year probably does seem like "living in penury".

That must be why he agreed to a top-up nearly equivalent to the total compensation (p.a.) he found "appropriate" to award to a woman sexually abused for 10 years (from the age of 4).

Justice indeed.
 
In the infamous words of Pee Flynn, you should try it sometime...living on a 'mere' 9k a month...Seems like the Celtic tiger is alive and well for some
 
I'll have to remember this case next year when the local elections are on and FG come knocking....this country is a sick joke
 
reading the article makes me ill, loans sanctioned by fingers and taxpayer paying it back , all with eu approval
 
Did the judge actually use the term 'Dublin 4 housing'.

Anyone know if Ms Connolly worked, or how she acquired the properties.

What happens if the court in the ownership case decides it belongs to the bank, how will Ms. Connolly pay it back?
 
Purple said:
What's this got to do with FG?
Click to expand...

Well, the Judge is a former FG TD for starters.
And the legislation was written, it appears to me, in such a manner as to allow interpretations like this. The great and the good looking out for each other IMO
 
Delboy said:
Well, the Judge is a former FG TD for starters.
And the legislation was written, it appears to me, in such a manner as to allow interpretations like this. The great and the good looking out for each other IMO
Click to expand...

What legislation was the ruling made under. I have only seen references to legislation but nothing specific. Is it recent legislation?
 
Delboy said:
Well, the Judge is a former FG TD for starters.
And the legislation was written, it appears to me, in such a manner as to allow interpretations like this. The great and the good looking out for each other IMO
Click to expand...

That's a very nebulous connection with the current government.

My impression is that FG/Labour governments are far more proactive in legislative reform than any other combination of parties in government. That may be because the media are generally more friendly towards them than FF/other governments but I don't think it's just that.
 
Delboy,
The Judge might also have been a member of the Law Library, he could have been a former member of (say) Home Farm soccer club or Clontarf RFC, but so what? His decision on this case (whether you agree or not) is hardly a reflection on those with whom he was formerly associated.
It seems that some people just blame the Govt for everything, if it rains, if it snows, if judges make certain determinations etc.
 
No, I don't blame the Govt for everything....I blame FF for that!!!
I blame FG (who I voted for last time out) for change by a thousand cuts rather than having a grand vision for a new country....which I believe there was a mood out there for after that last election. But they went for more of the same.

This judge's decision is reflective of the circles he moves in....if that was me up there, I'd have told her to find a nice house for 1,500 a month in Walkinstown for example and send the kids to some of the local secondary schools such as Templeogue which is supposed to be quiet good by all accounts. But maybe I'm just crazy!

She no longer has a high station in life as far as I'm concerned and her cost of living should be more aligned to the average Joe Soap rather than her former existence. But the Judge, a former FG TD (which I'm sure helped him get appointed), believed she should be allowed to continue as before, granting her 90% of what she requested.
 
Sunny said:
What legislation was the ruling made under. I have only seen references to legislation but nothing specific. Is it recent legislation?
Click to expand...

Good question. The press reports seemed to be referring to very specific legislation.
 
Sunny said:
What legislation was the ruling made under. I have only seen references to legislation but nothing specific. Is it recent legislation?
Click to expand...

I think, but stand to be corrected, it's to do with the freezing of assets/freezing order. Not defending the judges decision, but the issue has been misrepresented a bit by the press (shock horror and all that).

The developer's assets were frozen, based on an application by IBRC to the High Court that they would be worried the developer might "dispose" of the assets before any money can be reclaimed. Could possibly speculate on why they would think that a possibility given the record of honesty of developers, but the High Court agreed it was a pretty reasonable concern.

However, out of the frozen assets there has to be an allowance for living accomodation as (whether we agree or not in this case) you can't make someone destitute while waiting for the actual legal case to go ahead. Remember this is a freezing order before any other legal action. That is where the specifics of "reasonably accustomed" comes in. It's a temporary arrangement whereby an allowance is given out of the frozen assets to accomodate their living expenses.

I think the issue is that some are confusing this with Personal Insolvency legislation, when it is based upon a long history of case law for such freezing orders and the exact same rules are applied when suspected criminals have their assets frozen, except that doesn't spark nationwide outrage.

The arrangement is temporary until any legal action is finalised. It is only technically coming from "public pockets" as IBRC are controlling the frozen assets. It is not the same as evictions, or any other issue. Once the full case goes adhead against the developer and a judgement/settlement is made on how IBRC will get back its money on the debts, then it'll be a different story.
 
Thanks Latrade, that’s amore concise, accurate and informative summation of the case than anything I’ve read in the media.
 
Thanks for the explanation. Is there specific legislation around this 'reasonably accustomed' thing?
 
Tut, tut, Latrade, letting fact and reason get in the way of a tabloid-fuelled rant
 
RainyDay said:
Thanks for the explanation. Is there specific legislation around this 'reasonably accustomed' thing?
Click to expand...

I totally stand to be corrected, but I think the procedure for asset freezing is based on case law rather than legislation. The main case is from the Supreme Court in O’Mahony v Horgan. Not sure of any specific legislation on the books though.
 
Purple said:
Thanks Latrade, that’s amore concise, accurate and informative summation of the case than anything I’ve read in the media.
Click to expand...

In fairness to the media, it meant recalling a lecture many many moons ago and spending 5 minutes googling "Freezing Orders" to refresh my memory.

I can't expect the Fourth Estate to protect and inform the public by having the time to do that kind of indepth research when all their journalists have been sent over to Poland to cover the Press Conference for a friendly football match and those who are left have to report on controversial Tweets by "celebrities".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register