The High Court has ordered seven plaintiffs known collectively as the Nolans to produce unredacted bank statements belonging to Serene Consultancy Limited, an associated company. The ruling concerns a preliminary production application and does not determine the plaintiffs’ underlying claims or the second defendant’s defence.
The plaintiffs allege that their solicitor, Ciaran Desmond, was responsible for several million euro in losses after pension funds were transferred offshore during Ireland’s financial crisis. They say the transfers were made over concerns about Irish banks, on advice including that of Desmond. Desmond disputes that account. He argues that the funds were moved to shelter them from creditors and later buy the plaintiffs’ debts at a discount, and relies on the defence of ex turpi causa.
The application concerned Serene’s bank statements for 18 January 2013 to 30 June 2015. The plaintiffs had produced redacted copies, showing transfers of €620,000 and €2.48 million, but said they did not have unredacted versions. Desmond sought the complete statements, saying they could support his account of the purpose of the offshore transfers.
In an intended witness statement, Richard Nolan described Serene as a Nolan family associated company in the Isle of Man. He said funds passed from CVS SA to Serene and were held there on trust for the pension fund. The judge noted that this statement was not yet sworn evidence, but considered it for the interlocutory application after plaintiffs’ counsel indicated Richard Nolan did not intend to resile from it.
The court found that the plaintiffs had obtained the redacted statements in 2020, after Serene had been struck off the Isle of Man companies register in 2019. The judge concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the plaintiffs should be able to obtain unredacted statements from the same source. The plaintiffs had not tried to obtain unredacted copies, and had provided no evidence about whether a struck-off company could be restored to the register or otherwise be subject to enforcement.
The court therefore granted the order requiring production. It asked the parties to discuss outstanding matters and said the case would be provisionally listed for mention one week after judgment if needed. The ruling was not a final determination of the pension-funds claims or Desmond’s defence.