The High Court refused an application by personal defendants in proceedings brought by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation), Quinn Investments Sweden AB and Leif Baecklund for leave to cross-examine solicitor Kieran Wallace about an affidavit he had sworn in May 2014.
The motion, dated 15 July 2014, sought leave to issue an application under the Rules of the Superior Courts or the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Mr Wallace’s affidavit had been used in an ex parte application before Kelly J on 30 May 2014. It described applications for Norwich Pharmacal-type relief in England and the United States, and information that Mr Wallace said tended to support the plaintiffs’ claims that defendants were seeking to put assets beyond their reach.
The applicants said the affidavit cast them in a bad light before the court and public, and gave the plaintiffs a litigation advantage. They alleged there had been hostile media coverage over the weekend after the ex parte hearing and suggested someone connected with the plaintiffs had alerted journalists. The judge said the evidence about how journalists came to be in court was inconclusive. He was satisfied the application had been made to update the court on information arising from proceedings in the United States and England and Wales. He also noted that no new allegations had been made and that the only order sought was that the application’s costs be costs in the cause.
The applicants argued that their constitutional rights entitled them to cross-examine Mr Wallace. The judge rejected their reliance on two cases concerning witnesses giving evidence against individuals at Oireachtas hearings, finding those circumstances did not equate to this application.
The judgment said there was no conflict on affidavit about the ex parte application. The defendants had been informed of it and served with the papers, but had filed no affidavit challenging Mr Wallace’s information. The judge said such a challenge was a prerequisite to leave for cross-examination. He also found the proposed questioning was not relevant to an issue for trial and would serve no useful purpose. Mr Wallace’s information was limited to applications in other jurisdictions and did not make a new case against the applicants or other defendants.
Justice Brian J. McGovern refused the motion for leave to cross-examine Mr Wallace. The ruling addressed that motion only; it did not determine the underlying claims in the proceedings.