This site uses cookies to improve your experience and to provide services and advertising. By continuing to browse, you agree to the use of cookies described in our Cookies Policy. You may change your settings at any time but this may impact on the functionality of the site. To learn more see our Cookies Policy.
OK
Dublin: 12 °C Monday 14 October, 2019
Advertisement

Banking account of Paul Kelly unfrozen to allow him claim social welfare

A second savings account remains frozen until the Kellys can prove the funds contained therein are theirs and not Console’s.

13/11/2013 NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCES Paul Kelly Source: Mark Stedman

Updated 3.17pm

PAUL AND PATRICIA Kelly, the former CEO of suicide charity Console and his wife, have had a freezing order on their sole banking current account lifted in order that they can cash social welfare cheques and pay bills, the High Court has heard.

The account, which is overdrawn by €165, is one of two that constitute the sole cash assets of Mr and Mrs Kelly according to their solicitor James MacGuill.

Justice Paul Gilligan acceded to MacGuill’s request to unfreeze the account in order to allow the Kellys to cash supplemental welfare cheques.

The court heard, however, that Kelly will not be in a position to do so until his p45 is issued from Console, and that this will not be possible until the relevant computer is returned to the provisional liquidator of Console by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), which is currently examining all of Console’s files with a view to bringing criminal charges.

Counsel for Console Keith Farry said that while he had no issues with the request to unfreeze the overdrawn account, he could not approve the unfreezing of a savings account containing €6,700, which the Kellys had also requested the use of in order to pay the mortgages on two properties.

As Console’s articles of association forbade the Kellys from taking an income from Console, it could only be presumed that the contents of the savings account were the property of the charity, Farry explained.

“The irony of the defendants seeking a p45 for a role that should not have paid them in the first place is not lost on the court,” he said.

“My clients are in extreme financial difficulty and the effect of this freezing order is a matter of great concern to them, said James MacGuill, solicitor for the two Kellys.

MacGuill explained that the two properties mentioned are both in positive equity. Those properties are the Kellys’ home house in Clane, Co Kildare, and the former headquarters of Console itself.

He added that the Kellys are currently living in the same house in Clane.

Separately, Farry supplied information as regards the “co-operation” of Paul and Patricia Kelly with the voluntary liquidator of Console Tom Murray, information which had this morning been requested by Justice Paul Gilligan presiding.

“On Thursday 14 July Mr Murray sent two letters to Paul and Patricia Kelly asking them to meet him to clarify the state of the company’s affairs,” Farry said.

He requested a statement of affairs and the completion of a questionnaire with regard to the affairs of the company.

“Notwithstanding the fact that only a short period of time has passed, there has as yet been no response from Paul and Patricia Kelly,” he added.

Justice Gilligan acceded to the request that the overdrawn current account be unfrozen for the purposes of cashing social welfare cheques and paying bills.

However, he refused to unfreeze the savings account containing €6,700, and said he would revisit the issue on Thursday 28 July, when all other matters pertaining to the case are due to be heard also.

“In putting this back to that date, it will give the defendants time to show how that money is their property and not that of Console,” he said.

Paul and Patricia Kelly have been asked to a meeting by the liquidator. They now have to meet him and satisfy him.

29/6/2016. Console Charity Scandals Source: Sam Boal

Earlier

The signature of Joan McKenna, the sister of Paul Kelly, was earlier claimed to have been forged on documents registering her as a director of the disgraced charity Console.

As part of an application to have McKenna’s name removed from orders made by Justice Gilligan previously, her counsel Jim Bridgeman lodged an application in which a handwriting expert confirmed that the signatures of Joan McKenna to be found on documents registered with the Companies Registration Office (CRO), do not match her signature in actuality.

On foot of this counsel for Console Keith Farry agreed that he was comfortable with the orders against McKenna being “relaxed”. However, her name will not be removed from the Console action entirely.

“We are not in a position to remove her entirely as we have not heard from Paul or Patricia Kelly as to whether they confirm or deny the suggestion of forgery,” Farry said.

Likewise, we have not heard from the auditor. Until we do it is right and proper that her name should stay as it is.

Justice Gilligan acceded to this request saying: “It may be that the plaintiff will take a decision not to proceed, but as of now your client is recorded as a director.”

As such, the name of Joan McKenna has been vacated from the various orders previously made regarding Console by Justice Gilligan.

Living costs

Meanwhile, the hearing of an application regarding living costs for Paul and Patricia Kelly has been put back to this afternoon as Justice Gilligan was not happy with Tom Murray, the provisional liquidator of Console, taking a “neutral stance” on those applications.

It’s understood that Paul and Patricia Kelly are seeking to reverse an order previously made which froze their assets as they wish to continue paying a number of mortgages.

“I am not happy with Mr Murray taking a neutral stance,” said Justice Gilligan.

We will reconvene when I wish to hear what level of co-operation has been seen on the part of the Kellys.

That hearing will take place at 2pm.

Also this morning, counsel for Tim Kelly, Paul and Patricia’s son who is the fourth defendant in the action, appeared for the first time.

He said that he is not in a position to make any application on behalf of his client, and that he would be doing so instead at a scheduled hearing for the action on 28 July.

First published 11.54am

Comments are disabled as the case remains before the courts

Read: Sun article criticising Channel 4 reporter for wearing a hijab gets 300 complaints

Read: Primark kidnapping: ‘They offered her sweets… there was a level of planning’

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

COMMENTS