The High Court has ordered six defendants in a dispute involving Irish Bank Resolution Corporation to attend for cross-examination about affidavits disclosing their assets and related documents.
Mr Justice Kelly made the order on 11 December 2012 under the court’s rules and discretion. It concerns affidavits sworn in response to orders made in July 2012. The judge said the questioning must focus on those affidavits and may be used to clarify disclosure and help the bank monitor existing injunctions. It is not a general examination of the defendants or a pre-trial hearing of the underlying claims.
The plaintiffs had also sought an order requiring further and better disclosure. Justice Kelly recorded that this second request was not being pursued at that time. The only relief decided in this application was the request for cross-examination.
The proceedings concern allegations that the defendants conspired to convert or appropriate assets. The judgment recounts that injunctions had been granted earlier, and that Justice Dunne found contempt of court in a separate application in June 2012. Those are prior proceedings and findings described in the judgment; the December application did not determine the underlying conspiracy allegations or make a contempt finding against the six defendants.
In July 2012, Justice Kelly made asset-freezing and disclosure orders affecting the relevant defendants. The orders required sworn disclosure of assets and bank accounts in which they had direct or indirect interests, and documents relating to steps taken to put Quinn International Property Group assets beyond the bank’s reach. The defendants filed affidavits, then provided additional material in affidavits sworn on 22 and 28 November, shortly before the cross-examination motion was heard.
The bank relied on an affidavit from Richard Woodhouse, its group head of Specialised Asset Management. It identified concerns about documents relating to control of companies and transfers, allegedly undisclosed assets and accounts, payments from Russian companies, and documents held by legal advisers. The defendants resisted cross-examination and argued, among other things, that they had complied with the orders and that the request was too broad.
Justice Kelly concluded that issues in the disclosure affidavits required clarification and that cross-examination was necessary to fill what he described as a “vacuum”. He rejected objections based on the appointment of receivers and documents connected with Russia. He also said any questioning must respect the defendants’ constitutional and European Convention rights, including the privilege against self-incrimination; how those rights apply to particular questions would be decided during the examination.