Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd and Others v Quinn and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian J. McGovern
• Judgment Date: 13 February 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 134
• Court: High Court
• Date: 13 February 2015

[2015] IEHC 134

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 5843 P./2011]

[No. 120 COM/2012]

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (in special liquidation) v Quinn Investments Sweden AB & Ors.

BETWEEN

IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (IN SPECIAL LIQUIDATION)

QUINN INVESTMENTS SWEDEN AB AND LEIF BAECKLUND

PLAINTIFFS

AND

SEÁN QUINN, CIARA QUINN, COLETTE QUINN, SEAacute;N QUINN JR., BRENDA QUINN, AOIFE QUINN, STEPHEN KELLY, PETER DARRAGH QUINN, NIALL MCPARTLAND, INDIAN TRUST AB, FORFAR OVERSEAS SA, LOCKERBIE INVESTMENTS SA, CLONMORE INVESTMENTS SA, MARFINE INVESTMENTS LIMITED, BLANDUN ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MECON FZE, CJSC, VNESHKONSALT, OOO STROITELNYE TEKHNOLOGII, OOO RLC-DEVELOPMENT, KAREN WOODS, SENAT FZC, SENAT LEGAL CONSULTANCY FZ-LLC AND MICHAEL WAECHTER

DEFENDANTS

Practice & Procedure – O. 40, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Attendance of witness – Ex parte application

Facts: The personal defendants sought an order requiring attendance of a certain person for cross-examination of that person in relation to an affidavit sworn by the said person. The personal defendants contended that the affidavit contained certain defamatory information against them.

Mr. Justice Brian J McGovern refused to grant an order to the personal defendants. The Court held that in order to require an attendance of a person for cross- examination on the basis of the contents of an affidavit, there must be a challenge to the contents of the affidavits and since the personal defendants had never disputed the contents made therein, they could not be allowed to cross-examine the person making the affidavit.

1 1. By notice of motion dated 15 ^th July, 2014, the personal defendants seek leave to issue a motion pursuant to O. 40, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or, alternatively, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the courts requiring the attendance of Mr. Kieran Wallace, for cross examination in respect of an affidavit sworn by him on 29 ^th May, 2014. The application is grounded on the affidavit of Mr. Niall McPartland sworn on 14 ^th July, 2014.

2 2. The affidavit sworn by Mr. Wallace was used in an ex parte application brought before Kelly J. on 30 ^th May, 2014. In para. 2 of his affidavit, Mr. Wallace stated:-

"This affidavit is not made to ground any application to the court in these proceedings but rather is made to inform the court of applications made since 21 February, 2014, for Norwich Pharmacal type relief in aid of these proceedings in the Commercial Court in London ('the English application') and, separately, in the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware ('the US application') in the context of existing Chapter 15 proceedings arising from the liquidation of IBRC. Both the English application and US application were the subject of no tell orders or 'gagging' orders in those jurisdictions such that the court files have been sealed and that the respondents to those applications have been prevented from notifying any third parties of the proceedings and/or orders made. I believe that the court seals have now been lifted in both jurisdictions following the expiry of the gagging orders, and I, therefore, wish to inform the court of the basis of those applications and the orders made in those proceedings. The US proceedings are on-going. No other proceedings, civil or criminal, arising from the information described at paragraphs 11 onward, have been initiated in the other jurisdiction and there are no such proceedings in existence in any other jurisdictions."

3 3. In the course of the affidavit, Mr. Wallace set out a considerable amount of information including some obtained from informants who were not identified. Email correspondence was also referred to and Mr. Wallace expressed the view that some of the information set out in the affidavit tended to support the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants were seeking to put their assets beyond the reach of the plaintiffs by means of various schemes which had been devised.

4 4. The applicants in the motion complain that the information contained in the affidavit of Mr. Wallace cast them in a bad light, not only before the court, but also before the public in general and gives a litigation advantage to the plaintiffs over the personal defendants. The application was made on a Friday and the...