The High Court on 21 May 2015 granted Denis O’Brien and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (IBRC) interlocutory orders restraining RTÉ from publishing specified confidential banking information about their dealings. The orders apply pending a full hearing of the proceedings. The court did not order RTÉ to deliver up the documents it held; it said that request should be considered at trial.
The two cases arose after RTÉ told O’Brien and IBRC it was preparing a report about O’Brien’s loan repayment arrangements. RTÉ said its report would examine whether an alleged verbal agreement with former IBRC management extended the repayment period and how the bank handled the matter. O’Brien and IBRC sought orders covering confidential banking material. IBRC also claimed legal professional privilege over legal advice in RTÉ’s possession.
RTÉ argued that publication would serve the public interest by examining IBRC’s governance and its dealings with major debtors, given the bank’s connection to public funds. It did not allege wrongdoing by O’Brien. The court noted that the public interest in IBRC’s governance did not give the public an automatic right to every detail of customers’ confidential affairs.
The judge said the evidence at the interlocutory hearing did not substantively establish that the alleged verbal agreement had been made. O’Brien’s assertion that he had an agreement, by itself, fell short of showing that one had been concluded; the court noted that IBRC had not accepted its existence. The judge also found little connection had been established between the governance concerns raised by RTÉ and O’Brien’s personal dealings with IBRC. On that basis, the plaintiffs had made a convincing case that they would succeed at trial.
The court weighed banking confidentiality and privacy against freedom of expression, applying the demanding standard for an interim restraint on publication. It also considered evidence from banking expert Marcus John Sewell Trench that disclosure could harm O’Brien’s banking reputation and future credit terms. At this stage, the judge gave that evidence greater weight than RTÉ’s contrary submissions and considered damages inadequate to compensate for potentially incalculable loss. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, particularly because the IBRC story was likely to remain newsworthy after trial.
The judge said the precise terms of the restraint order would be settled after submissions from counsel. The judgment did not determine the full merits of the claims or finally rule on IBRC’s privilege claim; the orders were made on other grounds. The source ends mid-sentence as the judge begins to explain that privileged documents would be included in the orders for those other reasons.