The Supreme Court quashed a report by inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited, finding that they lacked jurisdiction to make findings about John J. Byrne without rehearing his evidence before all four inspectors.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made in May 2001. It allowed inspectors who had missed a witness interview to take part in the report if the veracity of that evidence was not in dispute. If it was disputed, the interview had to be conducted again with the absent inspectors present.
Mr Byrne was interviewed under oath in January 2001 by two of the four inspectors. The Supreme Court said the report later contradicted his evidence on whether he controlled two trusts and could benefit from their income. The inspectors described him as truthful and reliable, but found that the trust funds were available to him and that he controlled them. The Court held that “veracity” in the order referred to the factual accuracy of the evidence, not merely whether Mr Byrne sincerely believed what he said.
The judgment also cited a £212,000 loan advanced in 1994 to Mr Byrne’s wife on behalf of Ballymadun Stud. Mr Byrne said she was the full owner of the stud and received the money in that capacity. The inspectors rejected his explanation and concluded that he was the real beneficiary. The Supreme Court considered this another direct dispute over factual evidence.
The Court accepted that the inspectors could consider other evidence and reach conclusions adverse to Mr Byrne. But, given the conflicts between his sworn evidence and their findings, all four inspectors had to hear him before reporting. The Court quashed the inspectors’ report as having been arrived at without jurisdiction.
The judgment did not decide the other grounds raised in the judicial review challenge, and made no comment on them. It also expressed doubt about the inspectors’ contention that Mr Byrne had admitted control of the trusts during the interview, but did not resolve that issue.