Couple's £lm action against accountancy firm dismissed

A HIGH COURT action taken by a Co Waterford couple against the Coopers & Lybrand (C&L) accountancy firm was dismissed…

A HIGH COURT action taken by a Co Waterford couple against the Coopers & Lybrand (C&L) accountancy firm was dismissed on the agreement of both parties yesterday.

Mr Francis and Mrs Dolores Hamm alleged they had been wrongly advised by the firm and were suing for £1 million. Another action being planned by the couple against the firm would not go ahead, Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the plaintiffs, told the court.

Formally dismissing the actions, Mr Justice McCracken said he thought the decisions by both parties "very wise". Hearings in the case had taken place on Wednesday and Thursday.

The court was told that the couple had wanted to develop a property in Waterford into the Oldcourt Hotel and were claiming the accountancy firm had given them bad advice on the project.

READ MORE

In 1989, they agreed to buy the property, which included 20 acres, stables and a garden. At the time, substantial funding was available to them. They had formed a company, Oldcourt Ltd, which owned the property at Killoteran.

By oral agreement, Mr Hamm had retained and employed C&L as accountants and to advise on how the premises could be developed as a hotel so as to attract, finds from the Business Expansion Scheme (BES) then in operation, and to advise generally on financing the development. It was claimed C&L failed to properly advise on BES funding and was negligent in its advice. This was denied by the defence.

Mr John Gordon SC, for C&L, denied the firm was retained or employed as accountants and financial advisers in connection with the development. It did advise in relation to investment finance which would qualify for BES funding.

It denied it advised as to the manner in which the premises could be developed as a hotel so as to ensure that the development would qualify for and attract BES funds. It denied all other claims, and stated it was under no obligation to advise on or predict what legislative changes might or might not take place.