The High Court refused a Revenue Commissioners application requiring National Irish Bank to disclose details of certain accounts held at its former Isle of Man branch. The court found that the accounts were governed by Manx law and declined to make an order that it considered incompatible with that jurisdiction’s laws and judicial system.
The application was brought by Paul Walsh, a Revenue Commissioners Principal Officer and authorised officer. It sought a schedule of account holders with an address in Ireland whose Isle of Man branch deposits had exceeded £5,000 or €6,350 at any time. The requested details included names and addresses, account opening dates and balances, maximum balances, and closure dates where applicable.
The bank had agreed to provide other information sought in the application. An order made by consent in March 2006 for information relating to Northern Bank Limited and Northern Bank (IOM) Limited remained in force. The dispute before the court concerned only the request for records about National Irish Bank’s Isle of Man accounts.
The Revenue argued that the order would be directed to an Irish company and could be complied with in Ireland. It said the application concerned Irish residents and that the relevant records were within the bank’s possession, power or procurement. The bank said disclosure could expose it to claims by former customers because the accounts were held in the Isle of Man and protected by Manx law.
Justice William McKechnie accepted that the Revenue had met the statutory conditions for making its application. He also found that a bank’s duty of confidentiality continued after an account was closed. The information sought had been acquired during the bank-customer relationship, and the closure of the Isle of Man branch did not end that duty.
The judge concluded that the banking contracts were governed by Isle of Man law. He also held that section 908 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 had no extra-territorial effect, while noting that this conclusion could be obiter because the Revenue sought an order against the Irish company rather than the branch itself.
Relying on the evidence about Manx law and decisions concerning the Isle of Man, the judge said he would not grant an order that would conflict with that jurisdiction’s legal system. He therefore refused the relief sought. The judgment also noted that section 908 applications are heard in camera and that parties should have an opportunity to address the effects of the provisions governing anonymity and public delivery of judgments before publication.