O'Dowd and Ors v McGinley (Approved)

In this judgment, I explain why Mr McGinley is liable to the plaintiffs for certain capital sums plus interest, all to be netted against certain sums already paid over by Mr McGinley.

        Mr McGinley did not dispute his liability for the monies due in respect of the �80,000 and �35,000 agreements. He had in fact paid �115,000 into court for payment out to the plaintiffs. This followed on a previous acknowledged payment to the plaintiffs of �5,000. So none of these amounts were truly in dispute before me and the claim fell in effect to be reduced by �120,000.

        In her oral evidence, Ms S�le Barrett, when responding to the proposition that she had loaned money to Mr McGinley, queried why she would give a loan to a man she barely knew. I admit that I rather wondered at this point why she would place �35,000 with a man she barely knew and who did not impress me when he took to the witness-box as someone who was especially savvy financially or endowed with silver-tongued eloquence. But be that as it may, the agreements, I hold, fall more properly to be treated as investment agreements.

        On the dearth of evidence before me, I cannot conclude that anyone went with Ms Teresa Barrett to the Ulster Bank in Tralee on 16 th September 2014. In terms of linking Mr McGinley to this last transfer or to his presence at the bank on 16 th September 2014, there is, as I said, simply no evidence at all - and courts must proceed on evidence.

    Does the foregoing mean that the plaintiffs must fail in the case that they have brought? No, I do not believe that it means that they fail, and here one must turn to the express terms of the agreements that they entered into.