A lawyer who attended discussions early last year aimed at resolving a continuing dispute between members of the Coman family over their Dublin pubs and drinks business told the High Court yesterday that relations between the parties at the time were "atrocious".
However, Mr Brian O'Moore SC, who on February 5th, 2003, was representing Mr Patrick Coman snr and his wife, Mary, said the relations between himself and Mr Gerard Hogan SC, then representing five sons of the couple, were consistently good.
Yesterday was the fifth day of an action in which the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, is being asked to resolve the meaning and effect of an alleged agreement of February 5th, 2003, between Patrick and Mary Coman, founders of the business, and five of their sons, Geoffrey, John, Patrick jnr, Thomas and Denis.
Evidence in the case is expected to conclude today after which submissions from counsel will be heard. The judge has indicated he may not be able to give judgment until the next law term, which starts in October.
Yesterday Mr O'Moore agreed with Mr Michael Cush SC, for the senior Comans, that there were a number of matters outstanding at the time of the discussions in February 2003. Those were the issues to be resolved if there was going to be a "clean break".
On February 5th they were anxious to find out if there was a possibility of doing a deal. There had been discussions previously between Mr Hogan and himself. They could talk frankly about where they were going and they had got nowhere.
Mr O'Moore referred to various offers made during the discussions on February 5th, 2003, which went on late into the night. He said there was a breakthrough about 10.40 p.m. when they agreed the "luck money".
He said he did a deal with Mr Hogan that night, and the deal encompassed seven or eight factors which had been identified by counsel earlier in the proceedings. Mr O'Moore said he was looking for a tax-efficient arrangement.
Under cross-examination by Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, for the five sons, Mr O'Moore said that during the discussions there was no suggestion that €1.25 million was the complete value of the property, Comans pub in Rathgar. That figure had always been described as an advance on the pub, he said. It was never agreed with Mr Hogan that any figure would be a consideration for the pub.
Mr O'Moore agreed that, on the night, Mr Hogan had suggested that the agreement be reduced to writing.
Mr O'Moore said he had said that was not desirable. He did not think it was necessary because, he said, they knew what the deal was. It was clear that Mr Hogan and himself agreed on 99 per cent of the issues.
In reply to the judge, Mr O'Moore said he had told Mr Hogan that it was very important for his side, given that they would be in receipt of monies and were the people most likely to be subject to a charge to tax, that the matter be done as tax-efficiently as it could be done.
Mr Hogan and he had agreed nothing about the precise way in which the tax issues would be addressed.
The hearing continues today.