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

Latrade said:

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".

Click to expand...

Yea, fair point. I keep forgetting that they are journalists so doing research and informing the public isn't what we should expect from them.
Better to have ill-informed diatribes from their celebrity opinion writers, that's what we need. They are open to comment on anything, be they sports writers, political "commentators" or arts correspondents. An in depth understanding of the facts is optional, sometimes even a hindrance.

Latrade said:

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.

Click to expand...

You might well be right, particularly about the lack of understanding of reports.

But it was this phrase, and a similar phrase in the Indo article that led me to believe that there was some specific legislation;

While IBRC accepted the relevant law provides for payment of living expenses to fund the lifestyle to which the relevant person was reasonably accustomed,

Click to expand...

RainyDay said:

But it was this phrase, and a similar phrase in the Indo article that led me to believe that there was some specific legislation;

While IBRC accepted the relevant law provides for payment of living expenses to fund the lifestyle to which the relevant person was reasonably accustomed, IBRC was conscious, if its claim to the frozen monies was upheld, the expenses were being funded by the Irish taxpayer, counsel said.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A decision by the Supreme Court would be law, just one of a Civil nature. However, I'm sure those writing the reports were probably aware that being vague in terminoligy and not offering clarity would give the impression that this protection was written into actual legislation to protect developers rather than being from a commercial case long before the bust.

The argument is about IBRC's aggressive policy on seeking legal judgments over settlements. In effect, by securing the freezing orders they have to accuse (and provide reasonable evidence of) the developer of fraud in obtaining the loan as well as risk of the developer disposing of their assets. But that also has the effect of absolving the banks of any responsibility for negligent loans as they were gained fraudulently.

IBRC has taken the decision to use these freezing orders (correctly in my opinion) for their own benefit. They've taken advantage of the Supreme Court decision in order to freeze assets, so they have to play by the same rules. I question the wisdom of spending actual public money on fighting a case they themselves admit in the quote the law says the developer is entitled to.

I'd be interested to know more about the technicalities of the frozen assets. IBRC state that the public are paying for the allowances, however my understanding is that IBRC do not own the frozen assets, they may administer the allowances, but they and by extension we do not have any claim on that money until there is a judgement.

This merits a new acronym.....

instead of WAG, we can now have DWAG ( developers wife & gf) or D4WAG

If ever car reg numbers become makey uppy the D4WAG reg number will be most esteemed.

Latrade said:

IBRC state that the public are paying for the allowances, however my understanding is that IBRC do not own the frozen assets, they may administer the allowances, but they and by extension we do not have any claim on that money until there is a judgement.

Click to expand...

I don't recall IBRC stating that the public are paying for the allowances to the lady in question. They dispute that the money is hers, but in the meanwhile, while this issue has to be decided, both sides agreed that she had to have something to live on. The only fight on this was on how much it should be.

If eventually IBRC win the assets, she will owe IBRC back the amounts she will have spent. But not sure where she would in the future get 9K a month to repay the IBRC/Irish taxpayer. But she should not be left with nothing meanwhile because the assets from which the allowances will be paid might actually be hers.

The only time I can recall the phrase 'reasonable accustomed to ' was in family law cases, where a decision was being made on maintenance.

Bronte said:

I don't recall IBRC stating that the public are paying for the allowances to the lady in question. They dispute that the money is hers, but in the meanwhile, while this issue has to be decided, both sides agreed that she had to have something to live on. The only fight on this was on how much it should be.

If eventually IBRC win the assets, she will owe IBRC back the amounts she will have spent. But not sure where she would in the future get 9K a month to repay the IBRC/Irish taxpayer. But she should not be left with nothing meanwhile because the assets from which the allowances will be paid might actually be hers.

The only time I can recall the phrase 'reasonable accustomed to ' was in family law cases, where a decision was being made on maintenance.

Click to expand...

In the article (see my above quote) they specifically say it is the public paying for these expenses. I question that statement.

As this is a freezing order, which in itself is under appeal, then judgement precedence is on providing an allowance to current standards. The issue of what their future living conditions are is a moot one as that will obviously change pending a judgement it settlement. It is highly unlikely that in any scheme of repayment the existing circumstances would be seen as reasonable. However as this is an initial process to prevent any disposing of assets, you are allowed to maintain existing expenses.