A row within the Coman family over ownership and control of a multi-million euro pub and drinks business in Dublin was described by a High Court judge yesterday as "a most tragic and unfortunate family dispute in which, possibly, passions have run high".
Mr Justice Herbert heard of turbulent years between the five sons and their parents, Mr Patrick Coman (80) and his wife Mary. The family are involved in the Comans' pub and wholesale drink business in Dublin, which operation includes Coman's pub in Rathgar. The business is now at the centre of a € 7 million legal battle.
A disputed agreement of February 5th, 2003, between the parents and the five plaintiff sons relating to the future ownership and control of the business, was secured because the parties wanted "a complete break" from each other "in business and regrettably in personal terms", Mr David Barniville, for the sons, said.
The judge refused an application by the parents for an injunction, to continue until the determination of full proceedings between the sides, against the five sons and the company, Patrick Coman Ltd, for payment of what is claimed to be €100,000 arrears (€50,000 each) of directors' salaries for 2003 and their ongoing salary thereafter.
The parents, who live in a house in Rathgar with a swimming pool and tennis court, said to be worth €3 million, had sought the injunction against their sons, Geoffrey, John, Patrick Junior, Thomas and Denis.
Mr Justice Herbert refused to grant the order on the grounds that damages would prove to be an adequate remedy for the parents should they win in the main action. He noted the parents had €245,000 in a bank account, a credit card with a monthly limit of €11,000 and other assets.
He had earlier found there was a serious issue to be tried between the sides regarding the exact nature of an alleged agreement of February 2003 to buy out the parents' 52 per cent shareholding in the business for some €7 million.
During yesterday's application, the judge expressed concern about the lack of evidence put before him to support claims that the parents' former solicitors had said they would not hand over certain documents unless legal fees of some €400,000 were first discharged, but said that matter was not relevant to the court's consideration of whether an injunction should be granted.
While refusing the order, he agreed the case should be heard speedily and said the parties could apply to the President of the High Court this week for an early hearing date. He would re- commend the case be heard as soon as it was ready, and believed it would centre on oral evidence as to the nature of the alleged agreement of February 2003.
"This is a most tragic and unfortunate family dispute in which, possibly, passions have run high and are responsible for what is happening here," he added.
In the main action, the five sons are seeking orders against their parents and Patrick Coman Ltd. They are seeking implementation of the alleged agreement of February 2003 under which, they say, their parents were to resign immediately as directors of the company and be paid €7 million for their shareholdings.
The parents say there was no concluded settlement between the sides in February 2003 and that as of now they continue to be directors. Nothing had changed except that they had not been in receipt of their directors' salaries since December 2002, the parents say.
Yesterday, Mr Brian Spierin SC, for the parents, said they had no ongoing daily income, had incurred considerable costs in respect of previous litigation with their sons, and were not in a position to discharge the fees of previous legal advisers. He said they had not got their papers from their previous legal advisers and had paid significant sums to their former solicitors.
At the moment, the parents had ready cash of about €250,000 and appeared in the Companies' office as directors. They had been declined borrowing facilities by two institutions. A €400,000 legal bill was outstanding. A sum was also due to an accountant. There were significant debts due by the parents which they were not in a position to discharge.