The High Court dismissed an application by members of the Quinn family and other defendants to remove court-appointed receivers and the receivers’ solicitors from proceedings brought by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited, Quinn Investments Sweden A.B. and Leif Baecklund.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2012, Mr Justice Kelly said the applicants had not discharged the burden of showing grounds for removal. The application alleged that the receivers and their solicitors lacked independence and had conflicts of interest. The judge found no evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety warranting the orders sought.
The receivers, Declan Taite and Sharon Barrett, had been appointed over assets of certain defendants. The court’s earlier orders required disclosure of assets and empowered the receivers to locate, collect and preserve them. The underlying proceedings involve the plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants conspired to wrongfully convert and appropriate assets. Those allegations were not determined in this application.
The applicants raised concerns about the receivers’ enquiries into Bazzely, a Portuguese company, and the receivers’ accounting firm’s past work for Quinn Finance. They also pointed to employees’ past or present connections with the bank. The judge said the firm’s earlier work and those employment links did not establish a basis to remove the receivers. He found that investigating assets, including Bazzely, was part of the receivers’ court-assigned role. He also said they could disclose relevant, non-privileged information about assets to the bank, and that this intention did not itself show bias.
The applicants also challenged Arthur Cox’s role as the receivers’ solicitors, referring to the firm’s past work for clients connected with the Quinn businesses and the bank. The judgment records that the firm had acted for a syndicate of banks in relation to Quinn Group Limited’s manufacturing business, a distinct group from the international property group at issue in the receivership. The judge found no evidence that Arthur Cox was currently acting for clients with opposing interests in this matter, held relevant confidential information, gave improper advice or disclosed confidential information.
The court therefore refused the application to remove either the receivers or their solicitors. The ruling addressed the requested removals; it did not decide the underlying asset claims or the applicants’ asserted defence that the bank’s security was tainted or unenforceable.