The Supreme Court has ruled that Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited may proceed with its appeal against a preliminary ruling in litigation brought by members of the Quinn family, without waiting for the High Court action to conclude.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 12 June 2013, concerned only the plaintiffs’ objection to the timing of the appeal. The court did not decide the underlying appeal or the allegations in the High Court case.
The plaintiffs are six members of the Quinn family. They seek declarations that purported charges over shares in companies in the Quinn group, related deeds appointing a share receiver, and guarantees are invalid or unenforceable. They also claim damages. They allege that lending by the bank, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, was connected to market manipulation and breached section 60 of the Companies Act 1963. Those are claims in the pending action, not findings in this judgment.
The High Court proceedings began in May 2011 and were admitted to the Commercial Court. In December 2011, Mr Justice Kelly directed that one legal issue be tried in advance, while declining to order the determination of other proposed preliminary issues. In February 2012, Mr Justice Charleton ruled that the plaintiffs should not be prevented from relying on the alleged acts of illegality in their case. An order followed in March 2012, and the bank served its notice of appeal the next month.
The plaintiffs argued that the bank should have raised the timing of any appeal before Mr Justice Kelly and that it had effectively undertaken not to appeal a preliminary ruling until after the full action. Mr Justice Fennelly said it was unnecessary to decide whether an undertaking had been given. The December 2011 order contained no restriction on either party’s right to appeal, and nothing in the record prevented the bank from appealing in the circumstances.
The Supreme Court therefore found no basis for requiring a further decision by Mr Justice Kelly on the bank’s right to appeal. It held that the bank was entitled to proceed with this appeal.
The judgment expressly left open whether, or in what circumstances, an appeal may be taken from particular issues decided during a trial. Mr Justice Fennelly distinguished the preliminary issue determined in advance of trial from separate issues decided in the course of a trial, and expressed no view on the latter situation.