A High Court judge has ordered that a Dublin chemist must spend three nights in Mountjoy Prison because she failed to honour an undertaking given to the court not to spend money in a bank account and money allegedly due to her company in VAT refunds, pending the hearing of an action brought against her by another businesswoman.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan directed that Ms Avine Doyle, Salmon Pool, Old Chapelizod Road, Dublin, hand herself up at Mountjoy Prison at 9 p.m. on Saturday, February 26th. She will be released at 7 a.m. on Tuesday, March 1st.
The judge also granted an injunction to Ms Janet Dillon, Brookfield Meadows, Rathcoole, Co Dublin, a director of Dillon Pharmacy (Carrick) Ltd, restraining Ms Doyle, trading as Well and Good Pharmacy, from disposing of or dealing with her assets below €302,708 pending the hearing of the action brought by Dillon Pharmacy against her.
Ms Doyle had claimed in an affidavit that she designed a pharmacy brand "Well and Good", together with two other business partners in 2002. This was designed to create within the Irish marketplace "a healthcare-focused group of pharmacies". In the following year, eight Well and Good pharmacies were opened. The company signed a leasehold to develop a pharmacy in Carrick-on- Shannon. She owned 94 per cent of the company.
Mr Pat O'Reilly, for Ms Dillon, said that in March 2004 his client was approached by Ms Doyle, who said there was an opportunity to invest in the Well and Good pharmacies. In June 2004, Ms Dillon wished to fit out the Carrick-on-Shannon pharmacy on behalf of Ms Doyle and Well and Good.
The judge said Ms Dillon paid €348,000 odd plus VAT to Ms Doyle as part of her contractual contributions towards the beginning of a fit-out of the pharmacies, which was part of an overall dealer relationship between the parties.
Ms Dillon had sought and got assurances that her money was "ring fenced" and would be made available exclusively for the fit-out contract in which she was interested.
However, by November 2004, Ms Dillon became aware that only €20,000 of her money had been paid to the principal contractor in relation to a fit-out of the pharmacy in Carrick-on- Shannon.
On January 14th last, Ms Dillon became suspicious that the funds were in danger of being dissipated in the ordinary course of Ms Doyle's business and she had instituted proceedings seeking an injunction to restrain Ms Doyle reducing her assets in this jurisdiction below €302,000.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan said it was claimed Ms Doyle had behaved dishonestly in leading Ms Dillon to believe the monies were held for the benefit of the fit-out contract only, when such was not the case.
On January 25th last, Ms Doyle had offered the High Court an undertaking that she would not spend money in an Ulster Bank account above €44,000 and would not spend €53,000 said to be due to her in VAT refunds.
She also undertook such sums would be lodged in the Ulster Bank pending the trial of an action brought by Ms Dillon. Ms Dillon had brought a motion alleging a breach of the undertaking and for the attachment and committal of Ms Doyle.
The judge said Ms Doyle had given evidence that at the time of the undertaking she actually intended to spend the money in the Ulster Bank account, on her understanding, she said, that she could replace it with other money. This she tried to do but failed and she had offered no satisfactory explanation.
The judge said that when she gave her undertaking to the court on January 25th, so far from there being a VAT refund due, no return had been made. There had been an email purportedly from a Well and Good employee which was used to back up the implication that a VAT refund was due.
The employee in question had sworn he was not in the office on the relevant day and never sent the email.