The Supreme Court upheld a finding that Sean Quinn Jr. was in contempt of court over his involvement in a US$500,000 payment from a Ukrainian company, and affirmed his three-month prison sentence. But it set aside most of the extensive orders later imposed on him, finding that they went beyond the contempt allegation he had faced and had not been pursued through the proper procedure.
The appeal concerned orders made by the High Court in proceedings brought by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, against members of the Quinn family and associated companies. The Bank alleged a coordinated effort to move assets beyond its reach. Those wider allegations were not all before the Supreme Court for decision.
The specific contempt allegation against Quinn Jr. was that he participated in arranging a US$500,000 payment from Quinn Properties Ukraine (QPU) to its former general director, Larissa Yanez Puga, shortly before the Quinn interests lost control of the company. The payment was made in early September 2011. Quinn Jr. denied involvement. After a 15-day hearing, the High Court found the Bank had proved the allegation beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Fennelly said the evidence was circumstantial but sufficient to support that finding. It included Quinn Jr.’s trip to Kyiv with Peter Quinn shortly before the change in control, documents that appeared to authorise the payment, and the judge’s rejection of the men’s explanations for the trip. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the contempt finding and affirmed the three-month sentence imposed as punishment for that transaction.
After the contempt finding, the High Court made a much wider set of orders requiring Quinn Jr. to take steps concerning assets, companies and legal proceedings across several jurisdictions. The Supreme Court held that most of these measures could not be justified as coercive orders arising from the single contempt finding. The Bank had not given notice alleging the other acts of contempt against Quinn Jr. or applied for the broader relief by the appropriate motion and evidence. The court said a person facing possible imprisonment must receive clear and fair notice of the alleged breach.
The Supreme Court therefore set aside the June 29 orders insofar as they applied to Quinn Jr., except for provisions on disclosure, liberty to apply for injunctions, appointment of receivers and specified parts of paragraph 31. It did not decide the wider allegations against him. The judgment leaves the Bank free to make a further application to the High Court about whether he should be committed until he purges the contempt relating to the payment.