The Born Clothing group, which collapsed with €7.82 million in debts, was allegedly stripped of nearly €1 million by shadow director John Curley to purchase two luxury holiday villas in Thailand, according to the High Court. Joint liquidators David O’Connor and Ian Barrett secured injunctions to freeze the properties amid an ongoing corporate asset recovery process.
High Court Grants Injunctions Over Thai Properties
High Court Judge Brian Cregan granted short service of proceedings on Friday to freeze two luxury villas located in Thailand. According to an affidavit filed by joint liquidator David O’Connor, the properties—identified as Villa 3 Ban Shaba and Villa A5, the Breeze Villas—were acquired using funds transferred directly from the Born Clothing group between April 2022 and November 2024.
The legal action was brought on a one-side-only-represented basis by the joint liquidators, who were appointed by the court in May. The proceedings return to a vacation sitting of the court on August 12th. Solicitors for the liquidators are seeking orders compelling Mr Curley to hold the properties on trust for the company.
Did you know? Foreign entities and individuals are legally prohibited from owning land outright in Thailand, meaning buyers typically acquire 30-year leases. According to joint liquidator David O’Connor, this restriction turns the disputed Born Clothing villas into wasting assets, creating urgent pressure to realize their financial value.
Disputed Roles and Financial Precariousness
Born Clothing operated 15 retail shops around the country before entering liquidation with liabilities totaling €7.82 million, which includes €2.2 million owed to Revenue. Despite this financial distress, court documents state that funds were systematically diverted for personal gain while the retail group struggled to meet its debts.
John Curley maintained that he was merely an underpaid employee of Elland Distributors Ltd, an associated company, earning a salary of €24,000. However, the liquidators assert that Mr Curley was the de facto managing director and controlling mind of the group. While he formally served as a Born director for two years before resigning in 2011, Mr Curley allegedly retained total operational control, negotiating with landlords, managing employees, and issuing personal financial guarantees.
Contrasting Accounts of Corporate Control
The legal filings highlight stark contradictions between Mr Curley’s defense and the findings of the joint liquidators.
- John Curley’s Claim: He argued that the company entered into a voluntary co-investment arrangement, that he invested €220,000 of his own money, and that he was entitled to a 30 percent share. He also stated he acted entirely under the instruction of those controlling the company.
- Liquidators’ Findings: David O’Connor stated that the transactions made zero commercial sense and were demonstrably improvident given the company’s heavy liabilities. Furthermore, sole de jure director Joan Lynch—previously described as Mr Curley’s life partner—informed the liquidators that she had no knowledge of any co-investment arrangement and was not involved in daily operations.
In addition to the Thai real estate holdings, court records show Mr Curley maintained possession of a €110,000 BMW 7 company car, which valued at four times his claimed annual salary. Despite ongoing communication through legal representatives, Mr Curley has refused to provide undertakings not to dispose of the villas and has failed to engage constructively with the statutory liquidation process.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the joint liquidators for the Born Clothing group?
David O’Connor and Ian Barrett were appointed as joint liquidators by the High Court in May to oversee the winding up of the company.
What debts did the Born Clothing group leave behind?
The retail group entered liquidation with total debts of €7.82 million, including €2.2 million owed to Revenue.
Why are the Thai properties considered wasting assets?
Because Thai law prohibits foreign ownership of land, foreigners can only acquire 30-year leases, which systematically lose value over time as the lease term diminishes.
What court date has been set for the next hearing?
The case returns to a vacation sitting of the High Court on August 12th.
Worth a look