A Monaco-based Canadian businessman has claimed before the High Court that he may be the victim of "some kind of fraud" allegedly committed by a Co Waterford-based building company and its director.
The claim was made by Mr Louis Trudel, who says that last February he advanced loans totalling €1.2 million to Carray Homes Unlimited Company to fund the building of 25 houses and six apartments at lands at Adamstown Kilmeaden in Co Waterford.
He also claims that Mr Darren Carroll, who is alleged to be a director and company secretary of Carray Homes, has acted as guarantor for the loans.
Sale to Waterford Council
Mr Trudel, who is the CEO of a Monaco-based construction and development company called TTMG International SARL, claims he was told by the defendants that when built the properties would be sold to Waterford County Council.
The court heard that the loans, which were to be repaid in full within 11 months with an interest rate of 30 per cent per annum, were advanced in two tranches.
The first facility of €300,000 was to be used by Carray Homes to show the council that the firm had cash on account and for working capital, and €900,000 which was to be used to acquire the development land, he claims.
Mr Trudel claims that he became concerned about the arrangement regarding the contents of a progress report on the development allegedly furnished to him by the defendants.
He said that aerial photographs of the site did not seem genuine, looked distorted, and appeared to have been digitally manipulated or falsified.
Mr Trudel sent a colleague to Waterford to inspect the site in late March and take aerial photographs of the development.
He claims that his colleague was brought to the site by Mr Carroll. It is alleged that Mr Carroll, of Green Street Waterford, told his colleague that it was not possible to take pictures of the site with a drone, because permission was required form the owners of neighbouring properties.
However, his colleague returned to the sites the following day later and took several aerial pictures.
Mr Trudel said that the images allegedly confirmed that the images in the progress report had been allegedly "falsified, and "were grossly misleading" as to the extent of the works been carried out on the development.
Sale of housing units
Mr Trudel, who says he has never seen any agreement between the defendant and Waterford Council over the sale of the housing units, claims that the provision of an alleged materially false and alleged deliberately misleading progress report amounts to a breach of the loan agreement.
He said letters of demand were issued by him seeking the full repayment of the loans from the defendants.
Following discussions between the parties' lawyers, it was agreed that Carray Homes would repay the first tranche of €300,000, and a stay was placed on the outstanding plus interest could for several weeks to allow the defendants time to seek alternative financing.
The High Court heard that while a sum of €50,000 has been paid to the plaintiff by the defendants, the outstanding €250,000 of the agreed initial repayment has not been transferred.
It is claimed that the defendants had given, but have failed to comply with, assurances that the balance of the first repayment would be repaid to Mr Trudel by now.
He now fears that he is the "victim of some kind of fraud". He further claims that he has "a genuine and well-founded fear" that the monies advanced by him have been allegedly "dissipated".
Freezing orders
As a result Mr Trudel's lawyers applied to the Court for various orders, including orders freezing the defendant's assets.
He is also seeking an order for judgement of €1.28 million against the defendants.
The matter came before Mr Justice Brian O'Moore on Thursday's sitting of the Court.
The judge, on an ex-parte basis where only one side was present in court, granted Mr Trudel a temporary injunction or freezing orders preventing the defendants from reducing or dissipating their assets below a value of €250,000.
The judge said that he was satisfied, based on the evidence put before the court, to grant the freezing order, which is to remain in place until the matter returns before the court next week.
However, the judge said that he was mindful that he had only heard from one side in the dispute and was granting the defendants permission to seek to come before the court on 18 hours' notice to the plaintiff's lawyers, to seek to remove or alter the freezing order.
