The High Court has dismissed Michael P. Fingleton’s challenge to a Central Bank inquiry into his alleged participation in prescribed contraventions by Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS). The ruling leaves the inquiry free to proceed; it did not determine whether Fingleton participated in any contravention.
Mr Justice Noonan held that the Central Bank Act allows an inquiry into a person who was involved in a regulated financial service provider’s management when the alleged contravention occurred, even if that person has since left the role. Fingleton had argued that the law applied only to people still in management when the inquiry was initiated. He had left INBS management in 2009.
The Central Bank’s notice, issued in July 2015, said it had reasonable grounds to suspect that INBS committed prescribed contraventions between August 2004 and September 2008, and that Fingleton and other former managers may have participated. The notice scheduled an inquiry to begin in February 2016. These were suspicions to be examined, not findings against Fingleton.
Fingleton also argued that a settlement announced by the Central Bank in July 2015 had prejudged the inquiry. Under that settlement, INBS admitted multiple breaches and received a €5 million fine, which the Bank said it would not collect because INBS had no assets. The judge said the effect of INBS’s admissions on the inquiry into Fingleton was a matter to be addressed there first. He found no identifiable legal right of Fingleton’s had been affected by INBS’s decision to admit the breaches.
The judge also rejected Fingleton’s claims that delay, publicity and the burden of taking part made the inquiry unfair. He found no undue or culpable delay and noted that Fingleton had identified no specific prejudice, such as missing evidence or unavailable witnesses. Complaints about the detail of the allegations and the information available to defend them were matters to raise with the inquiry in the first instance.
The court did not decide Fingleton’s constitutional arguments about whether the sanctions process amounted to the administration of justice or imposed vicarious liability. No constitutional challenge had been brought in the proceedings, and the judge said it would be inappropriate to express a view on that issue.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The ruling addressed the legality of proceeding with the inquiry, not the merits of the allegations against Fingleton.