The High Court has told the liquidators of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) to clarify some of their allegations against former Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) boss Michael Fingleton.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald said the IBRC must be clear which of its claims are “actionable” and which are “neutral” paragraphs merely explaining the background to the allegations. He refused to strike out sections of the IBRC legal papers, as Mr Fingleton (85) had requested, instead directing amendments.
Lawyers for Mr Fingleton, acting through his wife and son under their powers of attorney due to his severe ill health, had said many parts of the IBRC’s claim could no longer apply due to it having made various “concessions” before the Court of Appeal.
In ruling last May that Mr Fingleton had not established the civil case against him would be unfair, that court said the IBRC, which took over the failed lender in 2011, had narrowed its 2012 claim from more than €6 billion to about €290 million.
The court’s judgment said “whole swathes of issues will no longer feature in the case”, which now comprises a claim of negligence and/or breach of a director’s duty to exercise due skill, care and diligence in authorising and advancing a series of five loans issued between 2006 and 2009.
It identified various issues that no longer feature in the case “save insofar as they may specifically arise in relation to the five series of loans which remain”.
Alleged mismanagement
Moving the application on Wednesday, Padraic Lyons SC, for Mr Fingleton, said the IBRC has pitched its case at “the highest possible level of generality” with the hope the court will find that the five series of loans are “emblematic” of wider alleged mismanagement by Mr Fingleton. It cannot be permitted to proceed with such a broad claim, in light of the appeal court’s ruling, he said.
Senior counsel for the IBRC liquidators, Lyndon MacCann, did not agree with this characterisation and asked the judge not to accede to the request for paragraphs to be struck out.
On Thursday, Mr Justice McDonald said any “actionable” allegation must specifically link back to the five loan series, as identified by the Court of Appeal.
It is “absolutely crucial” that Mr Fingleton knows the case he has to meet, and the trial judge knows what he or she is deciding, Mr Justice McDonald added.
Mr MacCann requested some time to consider the court’s decision to ensure his client’s pleadings are amended correctly. Mr Lyons did not object to what he said was a reasonable request.
Mr Justice McDonald adjourned the case until next month, when it will be mentioned before him.
Meanwhile, a Supreme Court panel will meet on Friday to consider Mr Fingleton’s request for a further appeal against the Court of Appeal’s central decision in its ruling: that he did not establish a clear injustice in asking him to defend the proceedings.
