The High Court directed that inspectors’ final report on National Irish Bank and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited be printed and published in full from 10am on 30 July 2004. It refused to give the bank or its subsidiary an advance copy, and declined to order either company wound up.
Mr Justice Kelly delivered the judgment on 23 July 2004, after six years of investigation by inspectors appointed in 1998. The inspectors’ report, dated 9 July, had been delivered to the court on 12 July. The judgment concerns directions and orders following that report; it is not a criminal conviction or a finding by the court that any individual committed an offence.
The court said the public interest required full publication, citing the seriousness of the matters investigated and their importance to customers, staff, shareholders, regulators and the public. No party opposed publication, and no one sought redaction. The report was to be made available through the Director of Corporate Enforcement. The bank and subsidiary could receive copies at the same time as other eligible parties, while the Central Bank and Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority were to receive copies immediately. Copies were also directed to several Irish and overseas authorities.
In considering whether to wind up the companies, the judge summarised the inspectors’ conclusions about improper practices. These included accounts said to enable customers to conceal funds from the Revenue Commissioners, the use of certain policies as investments for undisclosed funds, reduced tax deductions where statutory conditions were not met, and improper interest and fee charges. The inspectors also concluded that the practices were widespread and had continued over a long period. These are conclusions attributed to the inspectors in the judgment.
The court weighed those conclusions against the consequences a winding-up order could have for customers, employees, banking services and repayment programmes. It cited the bank’s stated apology and estimated commitment of about €64 million to address issues identified in the investigation. The judge decided that winding up either company would not be in the public interest and made no such order.
The court also declined to make a general order to remedy losses or other disabilities, noting that the bank had put programmes in place. The judge made no ruling on whether those measures were effective and said affected people could still seek remedies through the courts. Parties, including regulators, were given liberty to apply later if an order became necessary.
Inspection documents were to be retained by PricewaterhouseCoopers for three years from the judgment, then destroyed unless an application for further directions was made. The bank and subsidiary were ordered to pay the inspectors’ investigation costs and legal costs on a solicitor-and-own-client basis. The amount of investigation costs was to be agreed or brought back to court for determination.