Developer Thomas McFeely (or just plain “Tom McFeely”) looks set to become a locomotive generator of legal action on both sides of the Irish Sea. Last Friday in London’s High Court, an Irish creditor who had secured a judgment against Tom in Dublin succeeded in having Tom’s UK bankruptcy bid derailed – perhaps only temporarily, as it seems the UK bankruptcy authorities are reconsidering Tom’s bankruptcy bid in light of new information about his debts, and it seems Tom himself is complaining his human rights are being interfered with. There has been a number of separate legal cases – here and here – that have recently come to a head in theUK, where it seems Tom has been on the losing end.
And on this side of the Irish Sea, Tom has not left the headlines since he was accused of not being able to build a snowman last October 2011, not to mention a block of flats as evidenced by the farce and tragedy of the residents of Tom’s Priory Hall complex in north Dublin. NAMA has recently been pursuing possession in the Circuit Civil Court of Tom’s €10m home onDublin’s upmarketAilesbury Road, and the latest had been that the McFeelys were ordered to leave the house by the start of August 2012, on condition that they put buildings insurance in place.
Yesterday, NAMA made an application to Dublin’s High Court – reference number 2012/129 CA – against Tom and his wife, Nina. NAMA is represented by a fairly small firm of Dublin solicitors Whelan Murtagh, which I think is the first time this firm has been used by NAMA. And, as is usual with the processing of new applications by the Courts Service, there is no solicitor showing on record for the McFeelys.
We don’t have any details at this stage about the subject of the application, though it seems it may be related to a lower court case in the Circuit Court and it may well be associated with the possession order for the McFeely house onAilesbury Road. In the past, NAMA has taken action in the High Court against individuals to seek personal judgments and to enforce personal guarantees. But it should be emphasised, we do not know if that is the case here.