Former Quinn directors lose court challenge to inquiry

Two former directors of Quinn Insurance Ltd (QIL) have lost a High Court challenge to a Central Bank inquiry concerning whether they had participated in regulatory breaches before the firm collapsed.

Liam McCaffrey and Kevin Lunney, as former directors of QIL, were notified in October 2011, as persons concerned in the management of the company, the bank considered it necessary to examine whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect they may have participated in contraventions between 2005 and 2008.

The alleged breaches were under the 1942 Central Bank Act and 2004 Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act. A three-person inquiry was set up, with a retired judge as chair, after which there was correspondence between lawyers for the bank/attorney general and the two men. The men complained the inquiry process was oppressive and unreasonable and also questioned its constitutionality. They also sought assurances that their legal costs of the inquiry would be paid if they were cleared. They were told there was no provision in the law to pay such costs.

They brought judicial review proceedings arguing, amiong other claims, the inquiry was tainted by absence of fair procedures and involved the impermissible exercise of judicial power. It was also unconstitutional because there was no provision for payment of their costs, they claimed. The Bank and the Attorney General denied the claims.

Irish borrowers face higher costs under ECB bad debts plan

---

Bulk of Irish insurance CEOs expect business growth next year

---

KBC to miss Central Bank deadline for tracker mortgage review

---

Bank of Ireland reviews €900m technology plan as new CEO arrives

---

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan dismissed their cases, saying their applications were premature and hypothetical. They must await the outcome of the inquiry before seeking to bring a court challenge like this as none of the adverse consequences they complain of may ever eventuate, he said. He rejected their claim in relation to impermissible use of judicial power, saying that was already been dealt with in a previous case which he must follow.

There was no constitutional infirmity in the administrative sanctions procedure, provided for under the legislation, by virtue of the fact the two men may not recover their own costs or because costs may be awarded against them, he said. The inquiry members had correctly determined the onus of proof to be applied by the inquiry is the civil (balance of probabilities) standard and not the higher (beyond a reasonable doubt) criminal standard, he said.

He found the men’s proceedings constituted an impermissible attack on unchallenged decisions of the inquiry members and on guidelines prescribed for the conduct of such inquiries.