The High Court’s Commercial Court has ruled on remaining disputes over particulars in claims by investors in Belfry property funds against Allied Irish Banks plc and other defendants. The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Robert Haughton on 28 January 2019, concerns procedure and the information required before discovery; it does not decide the underlying claims or liability.
The court said the plaintiffs had sufficiently identified the alleged prospectus representations and omissions in the lead case brought by Geraldine Cantrell. It declined to require the confirmation sought by certain director defendants about whether the claims relied exclusively on omissions. The judge said the plaintiffs and their lawyers should review whether their replies accurately reflected the claims they intended to pursue.
The judge ordered Cantrell to clarify how alleged omissions in communications after investment contributed to her claimed losses. She must identify the relevant periods for each fund and explain how failures to alert her to the alleged high-risk nature of the investments or loan-to-value covenants caused or contributed to loss. The ruling also directed clarification of when she discovered the alleged concealment and, if she maintained that she did so around June 2014 after receiving legal advice, why correspondence in 2009 had not alerted her. Similar clarification was directed in any of the other five cases where the same apparent inconsistency arose.
The court declined to order further particulars before discovery on whether lenders enforced rights following alleged breaches of loan-to-value covenants, or on the resulting events. Haughton said the plaintiffs lacked access to information likely held by the defendants and could reasonably defer further details until discovery.
On alleged fraudulent concealment, the judge found Cantrell had provided enough detail at this stage to give defendants a reasonable picture of the case. He ordered no further particulars on that issue before discovery, while leaving open whether more would be required later. He also declined to order further answers to queries about property sales, including whether they should have occurred later or were at undervalue. The pleadings, he said, did not make those claims.
The court found the existing pleadings and replies adequately explained, as far as reasonably possible before discovery, the alleged connection between the loan-to-value covenants and the investments’ write-down to nil. It did not determine whether documents about property sales and fund wind-down would be relevant to discovery. The ruling addressed residual particulars disputes following an earlier ruling on 23 October 2018 and applies to similar points in the linked test cases identified in its title.