The High Court has refused an application by Michael P. Fingleton to dismiss or permanently stay civil claims brought against him by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited over his former role at Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS).
Mr Justice Tony Hunt ruled on 14 May 2021 that the balance of justice favoured allowing the proceedings to continue. He said the case’s fairness would remain under review by the trial judge, and Mr Fingleton could raise concerns as the trial progressed, particularly after the plaintiffs’ case.
The application was heard remotely on 23 February 2021. Mr Fingleton, then aged 83, relied on medical evidence about his deteriorating health following a stroke in 2019. The judge accepted that he would be unable to participate meaningfully in the trial, give significant evidence or provide further instructions, and that this was a substantial disadvantage to his defence.
His solicitor argued that the breadth of the claims and the need for Mr Fingleton’s personal account created a real risk of an unfair trial. The plaintiffs accepted the medical evidence but argued that the claims could be assessed through documents, other witnesses and expert evidence, and that civil proceedings were compensatory rather than punitive.
The action concerns allegations that Mr Fingleton exercised excessive control over INBS, including lending decisions, governance and risk management, and that breaches of duty caused losses. The plaintiffs also pleaded claims concerning specific loans, bonuses and expenses. These remain allegations; the judge made no finding on their truth. Mr Fingleton’s defence denies wrongdoing and disputes, among other matters, the alleged extent of his authority and responsibility for losses.
Mr Justice Hunt said the principal issues could largely be assessed against objective standards and the society’s records. He noted that the claims and discovery had been available to Mr Fingleton for years before his health deteriorated, and that the defence had documents and other potential witnesses. He did not consider the Central Bank Inquiry’s decision to permanently stay its process against Mr Fingleton a guide to whether this civil action should continue, given the different statutory context and potential sanctions.
The judge dismissed the application, but did not decide whether the claims would succeed or whether a fair trial would ultimately be possible. He ordered that the plaintiffs’ costs of the motion be adjudicated if the parties could not agree, with that costs order stayed until the proceedings are finally disposed of.