Laurence Shields v The Central Bank of Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 444 |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2020/377 JR] |
| Court | High Court |
and
[2021] IEHC 444
[Record No. 2020/377 JR]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barr delivered electronically on the 30th day of June, 2021
This is a contested leave application, wherein the applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the respondent made on 15th May, 2020, in which it declined to exchange €4,400 damaged bank notes until a separate garda investigation had been concluded.
The applicant also applies to join J.T. Flynn & Co., solicitors, as a second applicant. The applicant also seeks leave to rely on an amended statement of grounds.
The respondent objects to the grant of leave on the following basis: the applicant, not being the owner of the bank notes, does not have locus standi to challenge the decision; the application should be refused because it is premature to grant leave, as the decision of 15th May, 2020, was only a holding or interim decision, such that no final decision adverse to the interests of the applicant has yet been taken; in relation to the merits of the claim, there is no basis for holding that there is even an arguable case that the respondent has acted unlawfully, or in breach of the applicant's rights.
The respondent objects to the proposed joinder of J. T. Flynn & Co. as a second applicant to the proceedings, due to the fact that it is out of time to challenge the impugned decision and no grounds have been put forward as to why the court should extend the time for it to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge that decision.
The notice party was joined on the direction of Meenan J., due to the fact that in his amended statement of grounds, the applicant had pleaded that insofar as the respondent may seek to rely on s.33A(J) of the Central Bank Act, 1942 (as amended) (which section provides an immunity to the respondent against a claim for damages in certain circumstances), the applicant would allege that the section was repugnant to the Constitution and in view of the fact that the applicant sought production of communications passing between the respondent and An Garda Síochána in relation to the damaged bank notes.
The notice party adopted the arguments of the respondent and submitted that any challenge to the constitutionality of s.33A(J) was premature, as the respondent had not yet raised the section in its defence, as no statement of opposition had yet been filed. In relation to the relief claimed seeking production of communications between the respondent and the gardaí, it was submitted that it was well settled that the courts would not interfere in operational matters of An Garda Síochána in relation to its investigation of crime; therefore any relief seeking production of communications between the respondent and An Garda Síochána concerning an ongoing investigation, should not be granted.
This case is connected to an earlier case brought by the applicant in respect of a separate batch of damaged bank notes. The damaged bank notes the subject matter of these proceedings, and the bank notes the subject of the previous proceedings, had originally been part of the one batch of bank notes, which had been damaged in the same event.
In a nutshell, the history of the damage to the notes can be stated as follows: The applicant had a little less than €10,000 in cash in an envelope. The envelope was placed in a furnace by the applicant's partner. The envelope was retrieved before the notes were incinerated.
In the previous proceedings, in a letter dated 16th July, 2019, the applicant's solicitor gave the following account as how the damage to the bank notes occurred:
“Our client's partner, while attempting to clean out our client's workshop placed the notes with other items in the furnace utilised in the workshop. Our client has and continues to be engaged in the production and manufacture of fiberglass objects of art. This work of necessity entails the use of chemical products. Acetone is by far the most common cleansing agent utilised for brushes, cleaning moulds, etc. We are instructed that there were some plastic containers placed in the furnace as part of the cleaning process and it may be that the same in some way damaged the notes”.
On 19th February, 2019, the applicant submitted €4,950 of the damaged notes to the respondent for exchange. The respondent initially refused to exchange the notes. Subsequently, when further explanation for the damage outlined above had been given by the applicant and following further analysis of the notes at an independent laboratory, the respondent reversed its decision. The value of the notes was transferred to the applicant on 13th January, 2020.
The full history of the application for the exchange of that batch of notes is set out in the judgment of the court in proceedings bearing title: Lawrence Shields v. Central Bank of Ireland (Record No. 2019/565JR), reported at [2020] IEHC 518. That decision is currently under appeal to the Court of Appeal
The present proceedings concern damaged bank notes in the sum of €4,400, which were part of the same batch that had been damaged in the furnace.
In or about April 2019, the applicant paid his solicitor, Mr. James Flynn, of J.T. Flynn & Co. the sum of €4,400 in cash as part payment of fees due from the applicant to Mr. Flynn in respect of the judicial review proceedings arising out of the refusal by the respondent to exchange the previous batch of damaged bank notes.
On 17th April, 2019, an application for exchange of the damaged notes in the sum of €4,400, was submitted by Ms. Sandra Daly, who was a former employee of J.T. Flynn & Co. That application was made in Ms. Daly's own name. The address that she gave, was the address of the firm. However, the name of the firm did not appear on that application form.
By letter dated 15th January, 2020 sent from the respondent to Ms. Daly at the firm's address, the respondent informed her that the application form which she had submitted contained an invalid IBAN. She was informed that in order to process the application, it would be necessary to resubmit the application form. She was also informed that it would be helpful if she could provide additional information in relation to how the bank notes were damaged. She was asked to sign the declaration on page three of the form.
By letter dated 21st January, 2020, J.T. Flynn & Co wrote to the respondent in response to their letter of 15th January, 2020. They informed the respondent that Ms. Daly was a former employee of the office and had been instructed to lodge the said €4,400 which they had received as fees from the applicant. They enclosed the account details for lodgement of the exchanged notes.
J.T. Flynn & Co sent a reminder letter on 13th February, 2020. They sent a further reminder letter on 26th February, 2020 in which they threatened proceedings if the money was not transferred into their account.
By letter dated 28th February, 2020, the respondent replied to the correspondence from the firm of solicitors. They indicated that in relation to the application that had been submitted by Ms. Daly for exchange of the damaged notes, they would require written confirmation from her of the following: the capacity in which she had made the application; that she was not the legal owner of the bank notes the subject of the application and that she was withdrawing her application. The letter went on to point out that the application form which had been submitted by the firm in January 2020 had been incomplete. It was pointed out that the declaration at the end of the form must be signed and dated; the quantity and denominations of the bank notes in respect of which the application was made must be set out in the application form and an up-to-date bank statement had to be provided in respect of the account into which the funds were to be transferred.
The respondent's letter also went on to raise a number of queries. It was pointed out that in the portion of the application form where the applicant was asked to provide details of how the bank notes were damaged, J.T. Flynn & Co had written “ fees paid by Laurence Shields subject of proceedings record no. 2019/565JR”. The firm was requested to state whether it was their submission that the bank notes had been damaged in the same incident as that described by the applicant in his previous set of proceedings; on what date the damaged notes the subject of the application had been paid to the firm as fees by Mr. Shields; were they correct to understand that the application in January 2020 was an application made by J.T. Flynn & Co on its own behalf; they were asked to advise if the firm had received any damaged bank notes from the applicant other than those which had been submitted in the application initially made by Ms. Daly and they were asked to advise if any further applications had been made by an individual on behalf of their firm in respect of damaged bank notes received by the firm from the applicant.
J.T. Flynn & Co responded to that letter on 2nd March, 2020 confirming that the bank notes the subject matter of their application for exchange had been damaged in the same incident as that concerning the applicant's previous proceedings; they stated that they had received the notes in payment of fees by the applicant on or about 29th April, 2019; they confirmed that the application was being made by J.T. Flynn & Co on its own behalf; they confirmed that they had not received any other damaged bank notes from the applicant and they confirmed that no further applications had been made in respect of bank notes received from the applicant.
Presumably due to the fact that the application form which had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shields v The Central Bank of Ireland
...appellant's application for leave in respect of the second set of proceedings for judicial review was ultimately refused by Barr J. ( [2021] IEHC 444) on the basis that the appellant did not have locus standi to challenge the impugned decision. Barr J. also refused to allow the appellant's......
-
Shields v The Central Bank of Ireland
...is an appeal against a refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review. After a contested leave hearing, the High Court (Barr J, [2021] IEHC 444) refused to grant leave on the basis that the applicant, Lawrence Shields (hereinafter “the appellant”), had no locus standi and the applicati......