The High Court entered judgment for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited on two admitted sums in its claims against Seán Quinn, but postponed decisions on the remaining amounts and a separate claim involving Patricia Quinn.
Mr Justice Kelly ruled on 23 November 2011 that Quinn owed US$219,901,910.64 in one action and €253,951,810.67 in a second. He said Quinn had admitted those liabilities under oath in an affidavit filed in Northern Ireland bankruptcy proceedings. The judge found no arguable defence had been presented to those sums.
The bank’s first action claimed more than €1.05 billion, US$808.2 million and ¥13.8 billion under a 2007 guarantee and indemnity relating to borrowings by Quinn Finance. Its second sought €372.2 million under four guarantees and indemnities connected with companies including Quinn Group Properties Limited, Quinn Hotels Praha A.S. and Shamrock Investments Properties Praha A.S. A third action sought €3,049,361.33 from Seán and Patricia Quinn for money allegedly borrowed jointly.
All three actions began on 2 November 2011. The court had transferred them to the Commercial List on 14 November, but deferred the summary judgment applications to give the Northern Ireland Official Receiver time to consider whether to participate. The Receiver sought a further adjournment, citing the live bankruptcy proceedings and the possibility of applying for a stay. The bank opposed a delay, saying judgment could assist its proof of debt if the bankruptcy remained in force and could be used if it were annulled.
The judge said the Northern Ireland courts had jurisdiction over Quinn’s bankruptcy unless it was annulled, and that the bankruptcy did not automatically stay the Irish proceedings. He stressed that judgment in Ireland would not determine the bankruptcy or prevent the bank from having to prove its debt under Northern Ireland procedures if the bankruptcy stood. Whether Quinn’s centre of main interests was in Northern Ireland was for that jurisdiction’s courts to decide.
The court entered judgment only for the two admitted sums. It adjourned to the following Monday the bank’s applications for the balances of the first two claims and for the full amount in the third action. The judgment did not decide those outstanding applications.