Quinn & Others v Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Fennelly,Mr. Justice Hardiman |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] IESC 51 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 24 October 2012 |
Between:
and
[2012] IESC 51
Denham J.
Hardiman J.
Fennelly J.
O'Donnell J.
McKechnie J.
THE SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW
Contempt
Coercive orders - Imprisonment - Indefinite order - Purging of contempt - Punitive order - Failure to comply with directions of court - Whether sufficient factual basis for trial judge to make finding of contempt of court - Whether coercive orders going beyond findings of fact - Whether possible to determine facts found and inferences drawn by trial judge - Whether sufficient evidence of failure to purge contempt - Whether principles of contempt of court applied correctly by trial judge - Keegan v DeBurca [1973] 1 IR 223; Shell E&P Ireland Ltd v McGrath [2006] IEHC 108, [2007] 1 IR 671 and Dublin City Council v McFeely [2012] IESC 45, (Unrep, SC, 31/7/2012) approved - Ross Company Ltd v Swan [1981] ILRM 417; Flood v Lawlor [2002] 3 IR 67; In re Haughey [1971] 1 IR 217; Hay v O'Grady [1992] IR 210; Anglo Irish Bank Corporation plc v Quinn Investments Sweden AB [2011] IEHC 356, (Unrep, Clarke J, 13/9/2011) and Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314 considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 44, r 3 - Regulation 44/2001/EC - Constitution of Ireland 1937, Art 38.1 - Appeal dismissed; allowed in part (372/2012 - SC - 24/10/2012) [2012] IESC 51
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn
Facts: This hearing was another stage in the long running and now infamous litigation between the respondent and the defendants, in relation to debts owed to the first respondent”s predecessor Anglo Irish Bank. The respondent contended the defendants were seeking to transfer assets in a manner designed to prevent the respondent realising security over those assets.
The fourth defendant (‘the appellant’) now sought to appeal the order of Dunne J, finding the fourth defendant in contempt, and committing him to prison for three months (this hearing is reported at [2012] 6 JIC 2602).
Held by Fennelly J delivering the majority opinion, Hardiman J dissenting, that three issues were advanced by the appellant for the Court to rule upon. Firstly, the appellant submitted there was no evidence present upon which Dunne J was justified the contempt finding in relation to a payment to an Ukrainian national. Secondly, the appellant argued that Dunne J exceeded her powers by requiring him to reverse transactions which he had not been found in contempt of. Finally, the appellant submitted that there was no evidence that the appellant had failed to purge the contempt. Of these issues, the first was paramount, as without a justified finding of contempt the appellant would automatically succeed on the second and third issues.
Fennelly J stated the correct manner in which to resolve the first issue was to determine whether sufficient evidence as available to Dunne J to decide beyond reasonable doubt the appellant was in contempt of court. Considering the evidence as put before Dunne J, it was clear there was more than sufficient evidence to find the appellant in contempt, and the three month sentence was appropriate given the outrageous nature of the contempt.
In respect of the other issues, the respondent had applied for orders intended to protect the orders of a judge at an earlier hearing, in the context of the High Court considering the coercive orders to follow the finding of contempt. Fennelly J considered that it was clear that a party found in contempt could be ordered to purge that contempt. In respect of further examples of what the respondent considered to be contempt, the respondent had failed to amend the existing motion or seek to issue a fresh motion. It was in the interests of justice and the rule of law, that persons such as the appellant were given appropriate notice of the alleged instances of contempt. Regardless of the strength of the evidence that the appellant was flouting properly made orders of the Courts, the respondent had to ensure that the appropriate procedures were followed.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeal in respect of the finding of contempt, but allowed the appeal in part in respect of the resulting coercive orders.
KEEGAN v DE BURCA 1973 1 IR 223
SHELL E & P IRELAND LTD v MCGRATH 2007 1 IR 671
ROSS COMPANY LTD v SWAN & ORS 1981 ILRM 417
FLOOD v LAWLOR 2002 3 IR 67
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL v MCFEELY & ORS UNREP SUPREME 31.7.2012 2012 IESC 45 [TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE]
RSC O.44 r3
HAUGHEY, IN RE 1971 IR 217
HAY v O'GRADY 1992 IR 210
CONSTITUTION ART 38.1
CHARLTON MCDERMOTT & BOLGER CRIMINAL LAW PARA 4.122
HEALY IRISH LAWS OF EVIDENCE 2004 P12
ANGLO IRISH BANK CORP PLC v QUINN INVESTMENTS SWEDEN AB & ORS UNREP CLARKE 13.9.2011 2011/4/809 2011 IEHC 356
EEC REG 44/2001
KEEGAN v DE BURCA 1973 1 IR 223
SHELL E & P LTD v MCGRATH & ORS 2007 1 IR 671
NICHOLLS v NICHOLLS 1997 1 WLR 314
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hardiman delivered the 24th day of October, 2012.
Judgments delivered by Hardiman J. & Fennelly J.
This is the appeal of the fourth-named defendant (originally the fifth-named defendant) Sean Quinn Junior against certain sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him on the 20 th July, 2012, by the High Court (Dunne J.). The orders are complex and not entirely consistent one with the other. Accordingly, rather than state their effect here I will set out the relevant portions below. The case which the first-named plaintiff ("the Bank") made on the hearing of this appeal was that on the 20 th July, 2012 the plaintiff had been committed to prison for three months by way of penalty for criminal contempt and that on the same day he had separately been committed to prison "for an unlimited period of time".
Insofar as the indefinite sentence of imprisonment, imposed in order to secure compliance with coercive orders made in the High Court is concerned, I agree with the Order proposed by Mr. Justice Fennelly to the effect that the coercive orders must be set aside. The rest of this judgment, accordingly, is concerned with the punitive order of three months imprisonment. In fact, this sentence expired on Friday last having been served, in full and without any remission, by the appellant. But he maintains this appeal as he is entitled to do, for the purpose of attempting to set aside the order finding him guilty of a criminal contempt. The sentence has been served in full, and nearly all of it served before the result of the appeal was announced, because the Bank objected to a stay being placed on the order pending appeal. It is my view that this action of the Bank, and the language in which its objection was phrased, casts considerable light on its true motivation for pursuing with avidity the imprisonment of the appellant.
The first-named plaintiff in this matter, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited, is the successor, insofar as these proceedings are concerned, to Anglo-Irish Bank. Anglo was, to all appearances, one of the stars of the Celtic Tiger years. Its growth was extraordinary in its rapidity and extent. Its fall was so rapid that during the year 2008 its shares were found to have lost 99% of their value. When, in September, 2008, after the collapse of Lehmann Brothers, Anglo was about to collapse, the Government took the view that it was simply too big to be permitted to fail and decided on the guarantee of Anglo and the other Irish Banks the cost of which for good or ill has dominated the Irish economy since the 29 th September, 2008, and seems likely to do so for years to come.
The Quinn group of companies, with which many of the individual defendants are intimately associated, and which Mr. Sean Quinn Senior founded, was equally a star of the Celtic Tiger era. It started in the cement business and rapidly expanded to the point where it ran an enormous insurance company and acquired an extraordinary portfolio of property assets, mostly abroad. It too has collapsed and administrators and receivers have been appointed to many of the companies in the group. Mr. Sean Quinn Senior and his family connections have been effectively divested of control of the companies and there has been extensive litigation between the Bank and the companies and the individual members of the Quinn family. It is correct to say that this litigation has been fought on both sides with extraordinary bitterness.
Each side considers that the other has perpetrated grave injustices against it. The Bank considers that the Quinn interests have failed to discharge their liabilities to Anglo and thus significantly increased the difficulties which affect that company, its creditors and successors. The Quinns' consider that Anglo have ruined them by treating them in a cynical and manipulative fashion and in particular by inducing certain of them to borrow money for the purpose of attempting to prop up the Anglo share price by the purchase of its shares, when the latter were in, or approaching, freefall. They consider that the proceedings taken against them are an attempt to saddle them with losses largely caused in the first place by their involvement, wittingly or otherwise, in an Anglo devised and Anglo-promoted scheme to save Anglo itself. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shawl Property Investments Ltd v A. and B
...clarification by legislation.” That view was echoed subsequently by the Supreme Court in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd. v. Quinn [2012] IESC 51 where Hardiman J. observed at p. 16:- “It is 20 years now since the Law Reform Commission urged the need for statutory reform in this area,......
-
Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC v Persons Unknown
...exclusively rather than primarily coercive in nature in civil proceedings. Hardiman J. in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v. Quinn at [2012] IESC 51 at para. 31 expressed concern as to the potential ensuing uncertainty arising therefrom observing — “This ‘difference of view’ does not sugg......
-
County Council for County of Laois v Noel Hanrahan and Others
...PROHIBITION OF FORCIBLE ENTRY AND OCCUPATION ACT 1971 IRISH BANK RESOLUTION CORP & ORS v QUINN & ORS UNREP SUPREME 24.10.2012 2012/18/5192 2012 IESC 51 LAOIS CO COUNCIL v SCULLY & ORS 2009 4 IR 488 2007/34/6940 2007 IEHC 212 HOWITT TRANSPORT LTD v TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION 1972 I......
-
Min for Justice v Connolly
...approval in several later cases. I cited parts of the statement in my own judgments in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v. Quinn [2012] IESC 51 and Dublin City Council v. McFeely [2013] 1 ILRM 40. Firstly, in a passage at page 687, Finnegan P considered the essential question of jurisdict......