McFeely loses appeal against repossession of €9.5m house
BANKRUPT developer Tom McFeely has lost his latest court battle over the repossession of his family home on Dublin's Ailesbury Road.
The High Court today dismissed an appeal he and his wife Nina brought against a NAMA company's legal proceedings which led to the possession of the house on August 11.
The National Asset Loan Management Ltd (NALM) company obtained the repossession order arising from Mr McFeely defaulting on a €9.5m mortgage taken out in 2005. Mr McFeely's company Coalport developed the Priory Hall complex in Donaghmede, which was closed last year by order of the High Court due to fire safety concerns.
Mr Justice John Hedigan said today there was no basis for the McFeelys' appeal against a Circuit Court ruling in which NALM obtained orders which ultimately led to the repossession.
The case appeared to be "open and shut", the judge said. He was satisfied the judgment obtained over a €9.5m mortgage had been well-charged and there was nothing wrong with the Circuit Court order which the McFeelys had challenged.
The judge said he was conscious this was a family home and it was a sad and terrible thing when someone is put out of their home but this was unfortunately part of the latest situation that has befallen the country.
"I appreciate the circumstances here are tragic and terrible but there is'nt anything I can do", he said dismissing the appeal.
Mr McFeely, who was in court, had previously complained his family were "living on the side of the street" as a result of lies having been told at a repossession hearing.
Today, the McFeelys' counsel James Salafia said his clients were unhappy they had been put out of their house after a court had been told by NALM there was alternative accommodation available to them. A conscientious investigation would have shown there was a lack of an alternative to putting people out on the street, he said.
However, counsel accepted that was all now "water under the bridge".
Mr Salafia also said Mr McFeely was challenging the order on the basis that he may not have been the proper person to have been before the repossession court because he was at the time a declared bankrupt. There was a question as to whether the court-appointed official dealing with his bankruptcy, the official assignee, was the proper person to have before the court, counsel said.
Michael McDowell SC, for NALM, said there was no basis for reversing the Circuit Court order
The orders obtained would not have been affected by Mr McFeely's bankruptcy because the security he provided for the mortgage was not affected. Mrs McFeely had also brought proceedings in her own right against the repossession and these matter had been fully heard and ruled on, he said.