A solicitor involved in attempts early last year to find agreement between members of the Coman family, who are in dispute over the future ownership of their Dublin pub and wholesale drinks business, has told the High Court he is anxious to stop, once and for all, "the bloodshed", in terms of assaults and litigation, between family members.
Such was the extent of the dispute that at one stage Mr Patrick Coman (80), and Mrs Mary Coman (70), had made very serious allegations against some of their sons and formal complaints were made to gardaí, Mr David Larney said.
Mr Larney, solicitor for Patrick Coman Limited, said he was anxious to reach a good, sensible and binding solution that would finish the abuse and arguments once and for all.
Earlier, Mr Larney said that advances of some €1.25 million made to publican Mr Coman by the company - of which he and his wife own 52 per cent between them - were always an "enormous issue" for the company. However, there was no objection in principle to the money being advanced, he said.
On November 6th, 1997, there was a resolution by the company that a sum would be treated as an advance and that any subsequent advances would be treated in a similar way. The overwhelming majority of the advances took place after that date.
Yesterday was the third day of the hearing of the dispute between five of the Comans' six sons and their parents.
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 the Comans and their five sons, Geoffrey, John, Patrick junior, Thomas and Denis.
Discussions between lawyers and others representing the sides had continued late into the night of February 5th, 2003, while the parties were in separate locations with some in the Conrad Hotel, Earlsfort Terrace, and others in a nearby solicitor's office.
In his evidence, Mr Larney said there had been correspondence as to how the advances to Mr Coman snr were going to be treated. The company saw no objection to Mr Coman getting the money but had a difficulty as to how the money would be lawfully treated, having regard to the Companies Act. There was no objection in principle to the money being advanced.
Mr and Mrs Coman were not present at the meeting at which the resolution was passed. It was later put to them that, if the money was not an advance against "the bricks and mortar," what was it, he said. The question remained a "vexed" one on an ongoing basis.
Asked if it would have been possible to construct a final settlement without dealing with the €1.25 million, Mr Larney said it would not.
There was no prospect of any agreement that would leave the €1.25 million "hanging", he said. It was not possible to effect a "clean break" if it was left outstanding.
Under the agreement, the sum of €1.25 million was being "forgiven" by the company. The effect would be that the "boys" would become the sole proprietors and owners of the company. The property would be transferred to the company.
The company would "forgive" the €1.25 million by way of a quid pro quo for the transfer of the company. Once they became total proprietors, they would have to establish a mechanism as to how the €1.25 million was going to be dealt with by the company.
Under cross-examination by Mr Michael Cush SC, for the Coman parents, Mr Larney said he was familiar with the commercial history of the company and the dispute between the parents and sons.
He agreed that it was "a madness" which needed to be resolved, and that there was not a single issue involved but a wide range of issues stretching back over a period of years and it was a highly personalised dispute.
Mr Larney also agreed with Mr Cush that, at one stage, events had culminated in the parents making very serious allegations against some of the sons and formal complaints were made to gardaí.
The hearing continues on Tuesday next.