Beades v Elderfield

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Costello
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 795
• Docket Number: [2016 No.4530 P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 21 December 2016

[2016] IEHC 795

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL

Costello J.

[2016 No.4530 P]

BETWEEN

JERRY BEADES

PLAINTIFF

AND

MATTHEW ELDERFIELD, STEVEN MAIJOOR, JACQUES DE

LAROSIÈRE, MARIO DRAGHI, EWALD NOWOTNY, JAN SMETS,

CHRYSTELLA GEORGHADJI, ARDO HANSSON, ERKKI LIIKANEN,

FRANÇOIS VILLEROY DE GALHAU, JENS WEIDMANN, YANNIS

STOURNARAS, IGNAZIO VISCO, ILMÂRS RIMðÇVIÈS, VITAS

VASILIAUSKAS, GASTON REINESCH, JOSEF BONNICI, KLAAS KNOT,

CARLOS DA SILVA COSTA, JOSEF MAKÚCH, BOSTJAN JAZBEC

AND

PHILIP R LANE

DEFENDANTS

Practice & Procedures – O. 19, r. 27 of the Rule of the Superior Courts 1986 – Dismissal of the plaintiff's claim – Art. 10 of Protocol (No.7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union

Facts: The twenty-second named defendant/Governor sought an order for the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against him. The plaintiff had filed a claim where he sought various mandatory and declaratory reliefs for compelling the defendants individually as well as collectively, to stick to their mandate as provided by their constitutional instruments. The twenty-second defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him in his individual capacity, and thus, it was an abuse of the process of law.

Ms. Justice Costello dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the twenty-second named defendant. The Court found that the plaintiff had not identified any obligations or breach of right owed to him by the named Governor, which required filing of the present claim. The Court held that the named Governor was entitled for immunity in performance of his duties. The Court observed that the plaintiff could not file a claim against the named Governor in his capacity as a representative of a Member State taking part in the work of the institutions of the Union, as he enjoyed immunity from legal proceedings under art. 10 and art. 11 (A) of Protocol (No.7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Costello delivered on the 21st day of December, 2016

1 This is a motion brought by the twenty-second named defendant seeking an order dismissing and/or striking out the plaintiff's proceedings and/or reliefs sought against him pursuant to O. 19 r.27 and/or r.28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, and/or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this court.

Background

2 The plaintiff instituted related proceedings at the same time as he instituted these proceedings. The related proceedings are entitled ' Beades v. the European Banking Authority & Ors. [Record No. 2016/4531P]' ('the Institutional Proceedings'). Six motions were brought for hearing before this Court; the application of the first to fourth defendants in the Institutional Proceedings seeking an order setting aside the service of the proceedings on them ('the set aside applications'); the application of the twenty-second defendant in the Institutional Proceedings seeking an order striking out the proceedings against it ('the Central Bank of Ireland's strike out application'); and the application of the twenty-second defendant in these proceedings (the 'Individual Proceedings') seeking an order striking out the proceedings against him. This judgment is concerned with the strike out application of the twenty-second defendant in the 'Individual Proceedings'. I have set out the background facts to both sets of proceedings more fully in my judgment of the 'Institutional Proceedings'. This judgment should be read in conjunction with that judgment.

The Plaintiff's Claim

3 The plaintiff's claim is set out in the general endorsement of claim in the plenary summons as follows;

'1. The Plaintiffs' claim against the defendants collectively and individually for their negligence and breach of duty including statutory duty in failing to perform their mandate within their office of supervising or adequately supervising the banks and other financial institutions within their jurisdictions which have become over exposed and the devaluing of investments in the petroleum industry and are seeking to disguise this fact through the wholesale removal of such assets by undervalued sales.

2. An Order of Mandamus compelling the defendants collectively and individually to perform their mandate within their office of supervising the banks and other financial institutions within their jurisdictions which have become over exposed and the devaluing of investments in the petroleum industry and are seeking to disguise this fact through the wholesale removal of such assets by undervalued sales.

3. A Declaratory Order that the Defendants collectively and individually failed to perform their mandate within their office of supervising the banks and other financial institutions within their jurisdictions which have become over exposed and the devaluing of investments in the petroleum industry and are seeking to disguise this fact through the wholesale removal of such assets by undervalued sale

4. Such further or other as this Honourable Court shall deem necessary (if it can)

5. Costs'

4 The plaintiff therefore in essence seeks the following orders/makes the following claims against Governor Lane individually and collectively with the other defendants:

a) negligence and/or breach of statutory duty by the defendants for failure to perform their alleged mandates of supervising banks and other financial institutions in their jurisdiction which have become over-exposed due to devaluing investments in the petroleum industry;

b) an order compelling the defendants to perform their alleged mandates;

c) a declaration that the defendants have failed to perform their alleged mandates

5 In the judgment in the Institutional Proceedings I summarised the plaintiff's claim in those proceedings as seeking a number of mandatory injunctions and declaratory orders inter alia compelling the institutional defendants individually and collectively to adhere to their mandates as provided by their constitutional instruments; to investigate all banks and other financial institutions, their servants and agents within their remit involved in the oil industry directly, indirectly or otherwise through their servants or agents; to sanction all banks and other financial institutions within their remit involved in the manipulation of global oil prices; to direct all banks and other financial institutions within their remit to cease their activities, divest themselves of all assets and other involvement in the oil industry, including their respective subsidiaries, servants and agents and to regulate the European banking system and to implement and comply with the Basel Rules.

6 It can thus be seen that while the reliefs in the Individual Proceedings have been cast in different terms the central claim remains the same. The plaintiff is alleging that the individuals sued in the Individual Proceedings, being the heads of the institutions sued in the Institutional Proceedings, are failing to perform their mandate of supervising the banks and other financial institutions in relation to the oil industry. At the hearing of the six motions no distinction was made between the essence of the plaintiff's claims in the Institutional Proceedings and the Individual Proceedings and the arguments advanced on both sides proceeded on that basis.

Submissions of the twenty-second defendant

7 Counsel for the twenty-second defendant submits that he is entitled to an order pursuant to O. 19 r.27 and/or 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court striking out the Plaintiff's proceedings and/or on the grounds similar to those that were argued in the Central Bank of Irelnad's application in the Institutional Proceedings. Those were that:

a) the plaintiff has no locus standi;

b) the proceedings impermissibly claim public law relief;

c) the proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action;

d) the...