The High Court refused an injunction sought by Vincent O’Donoghue to stop steps towards a possible sale of part of the Minister for Finance’s shareholding in AIB, and dismissed his claims against both the bank and the State defendants.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2017, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan dealt with the injunction application and the defendants’ motions to strike out the proceedings together. The injunction was interlocutory relief sought pending determination of the case. The court refused it, finding no issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants. The judge also cited the potential for extreme or incalculable damage to the defendants, the plaintiff’s lack of personal financial risk, his inability to provide assurance that he could meet any damages award, and his delay in bringing the proceedings and injunction application.
O’Donoghue argued that selling some or all of the State’s AIB shares would be contrary to the common good, citing Article 6 of the Constitution and concerns about AIB’s past conduct, private ownership and foreign investors. The State defendants said the Minister held about 99.87% of AIB through the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund and proposed selling up to 25% when conditions allowed. The judgment recorded that the State had recouped about €6.6 billion of its investment to date and that preparations for a possible initial public offering were substantially advanced.
The judge dismissed the claim against AIB, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the bank: it was the Minister, not AIB, who held and proposed to sell the shares. He also dismissed the claims against the State defendants as bound to fail. The court held that the proposed sale raised political questions about economic policy for the political branches of government, and concluded that the plaintiff’s case could not succeed under the constitutional and European Union law arguments advanced.
The judgment states that the court did not consider it necessary to give a reasoned decision on the plaintiff’s standing. It does not determine that a sale took place; it addresses the requested interim restraint and the defendants’ applications to dismiss the claims.