The High Court has refused Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited’s request for permission to serve six written questions on Catriona Fitzpatrick about her claimed beneficial interest in assets held in her husband’s sole name.
Ms Justice Baker’s ruling, delivered on 29 November 2017, concerned a procedural application in IBRC’s claim against Mrs Fitzpatrick. It did not decide whether she has an interest in the assets or resolve IBRC’s claims concerning the loan agreement.
Mrs Fitzpatrick claims a beneficial interest in 19 properties and investment funds legally held in the sole name of her husband, Sean Fitzpatrick. IBRC, successor to Anglo Irish Bank, holds security over the assets and seeks declarations that she has no such interest, that she is prevented from claiming one under the parties’ agreement or by estoppel, and that part of a loan agreement should be rescinded for mistake. These are claims in the proceedings, not findings in this judgment.
The dispute follows a €87 million loan agreement entered into on 11 February 2009 by Anglo, the Fitzpatricks and three of their adult children, renewing and restructuring earlier facilities. Sean Fitzpatrick was adjudicated bankrupt on 12 July 2010 and later discharged.
The six proposed questions asked whether Mrs Fitzpatrick knew of, intended to claim, or had told her husband about her asserted interest at specified points, including before a 27 January 2009 letter, when a 4 February 2009 facility letter was executed, and before her husband’s bankruptcy. She had refused to answer them.
Justice Baker said the questions sought to establish awareness and intention, matters that could require nuanced answers and explanation in the context of other evidence. Their wording did not allow for reliably clear answers, and answers could be open to more than one interpretation. The judge was not satisfied that the questions could be reformulated without risking injustice.
The court also considered whether requiring answers would save costs or make the trial shorter. It found that the case involved complex legal and factual issues and would require evidence from Mrs Fitzpatrick and relevant IBRC witnesses about transactions, documents and events. Any savings from the answers were unlikely to materially reduce the trial’s length or complexity.
The court therefore refused IBRC leave to deliver the six interrogatories. The underlying issues, which include Mrs Fitzpatrick’s claimed entitlement and IBRC’s claims concerning the agreement, estoppel and mistake, remain for determination.