The High Court ruled that a stay imposed on existing proceedings against Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC) was temporary and could be lifted by the court. Mr Justice Ryan granted the plaintiffs’ motion on 15 March 2013, allowing their case to proceed.
The proceedings had been brought in 2011 by six plaintiffs against IBRC and Kieran Wallace, with Sean Quinn Senior, Dara O’Reilly and Liam McCaffrey named as third parties. They sought to lift the stay that took effect when IBRC entered special liquidation under the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013.
The plaintiffs’ claim, as summarised in the judgment, concerned €2.35 billion in advances by Anglo Irish Bank to Quinn entities to fund margin calls on contracts for difference relating to Anglo shares. The plaintiffs alleged the bank’s conduct was unlawful under company and market abuse laws. The judge stressed that the motion did not concern the merits of those allegations, and he made no finding on them.
The plaintiffs argued that a permanent stay would prevent them from pursuing their claims and would raise constitutional concerns, including access to the courts and property rights. IBRC did not oppose lifting the stay. Both sides argued that the Act should be read as allowing the court to lift it, but the judge said the court still had to determine whether it had legal authority to do so.
Section 6(2)(a) of the Act provides for an “immediate stay on all proceedings against IBRC”. The judge said those words clearly imposed a stay when the special liquidation order was made, but did not specify how long it would last. He found no basis in the text for treating it as permanent or for concluding that the court’s jurisdiction had been excluded.
Applying constitutional principles of statutory interpretation, the judge concluded that the stay was temporary and could be lifted on application. He said a permanent bar on existing cases, while permitting applications to begin future proceedings with court consent, would produce an unjustified and discriminatory result. The plaintiffs succeeded in their motion. The judgment concerns the stay only; it does not determine the underlying claims.