The High Court has refused applications by four plaintiffs to reopen a constitutional and European law challenge to the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010, after finding that a later EU ruling did not undermine its earlier judgment.
In a judgment delivered on 3 December 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said the plaintiffs had not shown the exceptional circumstances or strong reasons required to revisit the court’s 13 May 2024 decision. That earlier judgment dismissed 26 requests for declaratory relief, finding the challenge to the Act had no basis in fact or law.
The plaintiffs relied on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s September 2024 ruling in Commission v Ireland, concerning State aid and Apple. They argued that the State’s loss of about €13 billion in tax revenue weakened the justification for the 2010 Act and affected the proportionality analysis. The judge said the claim that the money could have prevented or eased the need for the Act was speculative and lacked an evidential or legal basis. She found the Apple decision did not undermine the earlier findings, including those on proportionality.
The court also refused first plaintiff Piotr Skoczylas’s request to replace Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited with himself as a plaintiff. The judge said a substantial change to the parties was not appropriate after judgment, particularly as Skoczylas was already a named plaintiff, and considered that any substitution request could be raised in an appeal.
A separate request to correct what Skoczylas called a “falsehood” in the May judgment was refused. The dispute concerned passages in earlier Dowling judgments describing ILPGH as solvent. Justice Bolger said those passages recounted the applicants’ evidence and submissions, rather than findings by the earlier judge.
On costs for the original challenge, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the State defendants’ costs, to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. Execution is stayed pending resolution of an appeal to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. The court made no order on the plaintiffs’ costs request against ILPG over an abandoned 2013 joinder application, citing the way the request was brought and the passage of time.
The judge’s views on costs for the later applications were indicative, not final. She said the State should receive costs for the substitution and costs applications heard in July, and for the applications heard in October, against the three plaintiffs who participated. The matter was listed for further submissions on 14 January 2025.