The High Court has dismissed judicial review applications by Liam McCaffrey and Kevin Lunney challenging a Central Bank of Ireland inquiry into whether they participated in prescribed contraventions by Quinn Insurance Limited (QIL).
In a judgment delivered on 3 October 2017, Mr Justice Noonan held that the applications were brought outside the statutory two-month limit. The Bank notified the applicants of its decision to hold an inquiry on 10 November 2015, making 10 January 2016 the deadline. The applications were brought on 14 March 2016.
The applicants said they had engaged with the Bank by correspondence, including about whether their legal costs could be paid. They also relied in later affidavits on alleged intimidation and threats during the period before they applied. The judge found they had not established a good and sufficient reason for an extension of time. He said the later explanation had not been included in the grounds on which leave to seek an extension was granted and, in any event, did not meet the applicable requirements.
The judgment also addressed the substance of the challenge. The applicants argued, among other things, that the inquiry was unconstitutional, that the statutory scheme did not provide for their legal costs, and that the inquiry should apply the criminal standard of proof. The judge followed an earlier High Court decision, Purcell, that the administrative sanctions procedure did not amount to the administration of justice by a body other than a court. He also rejected the costs argument, finding no constitutional infirmity in the absence of a provision allowing the applicants to recover their representation costs, or in the possibility that inquiry costs could be imposed as a sanction.
The inquiry members had decided in October 2016 to apply the civil standard of proof, meaning proof on the balance of probabilities. The judge upheld that approach. He also considered the applications premature and said the applicants could not participate in the inquiry while pursuing judicial review that attacked unchallenged decisions made within it.
The court dismissed both applications. It did not decide whether either applicant had participated in any contravention. The inquiry’s outcome remained to be determined.