The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by eight shareholders seeking to stop the Minister for Finance from completing the sale of Irish Life Group Ltd to Canada Life while related legal challenges continued.
The appeal concerned an interlocutory injunction, not the final legality of the sale or the Minister’s ownership of Irish Life. The Court had already indicated on 16 July 2013 that it would dismiss the appeal and affirm the High Court’s order. In its judgment delivered on 31 July, it gave its reasons.
The shareholders argued that success in related proceedings could show that the Minister’s acquisition of Irish Life was unlawful, and that completing a resale could make effective relief harder to obtain. The Minister conceded there was a fair issue to be tried for the purposes of the injunction application, but maintained that he had an arguable defence. The Supreme Court said the merits of the related claims remained to be determined.
The Court considered the risk of injustice to both sides. If the shareholders ultimately succeeded, reversing a sale to Canada Life could present legal or practical difficulties. However, the Minister had agreed that he would not argue the related proceedings had become moot merely because the sale went ahead. The Court said this left the shareholders able to pursue their claims, including a claim for full compensation if they established that the sale was unlawful. It did not decide that reversing the sale would be possible.
If an injunction were granted and the Minister later succeeded, the delay could cause financial and other harm, including consequences for the national finances. The Court said the shareholders could not realistically compensate the Minister for such losses. It concluded that refusing the injunction presented the least risk of injustice and would not deprive the shareholders of an effective remedy under EU law.
The Court also addressed delay and an allegation of bias against the High Court judge. It found the shareholders had not moved with reasonable expedition, including after the Minister’s intention to sell became clear. But it did not decide whether delay independently justified refusal, because its conclusion on the balance of justice was sufficient. It rejected the bias argument, finding the judge’s remark concerned an ex parte interim order and did not show prejudgment of the interlocutory application.
The Court declined to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union at this stage. It said questions of EU law could be considered at trial or on appeal in the related proceedings if a reference were then considered necessary.