The Supreme Court set aside a nine-year disqualification order against former National Irish Bank executive Barry Seymour and proposed replacing it with a five-year restriction under section 150 of the Companies Act 1990. The court said the restriction should mark a failure to ensure proper returns of deposit interest retention tax (DIRT) to the Revenue Commissioners. Before making a final order, it said it should hear submissions on the effect of the restriction on Seymour’s work for church organisations.
Seymour had appealed a 2007 High Court order that disqualified him from specified roles in company management for nine years. The High Court had initially considered 12 years appropriate, reduced by three. The Director of Corporate Enforcement had sought disqualification under section 160, relying on an inspectors’ report about practices at National Irish Bank and its financial services subsidiary.
The report identified improper practices involving non-resident accounts, Special Savings Accounts, fictitious or incorrectly named accounts, insurance policies promoted to holders of undisclosed funds, and customer fees. It made no finding against Seymour concerning interest charges. The Supreme Court noted that Seymour had been the bank’s executive director for 27 months, was not a board member, and had not held a prior management role at the bank.
The Supreme Court said the High Court had relied on allegations and conclusions that went beyond the grounds in the Director’s application and the inspectors’ findings. It found no evidence of dishonesty by Seymour and concluded that the Director had not shown negligence or incompetence of the degree required for disqualification on the issues concerning accounts, policies or fees.
The court did, however, find fault in the DIRT returns. The evidence showed that returns generated at branch level were presented for signature as accurate and were signed without Seymour checking their accuracy, despite continuing failings in account records. The court described this as a grave failure, while noting that Seymour had not appreciated the possible retrospective tax liability.
The court concluded that a disqualification order was not justified. It said a restriction order could mark the failure concerning the DIRT returns, and proposed a five-year restriction instead. The judgment records that this was a proposed substitute order and that the court considered further representations necessary before making it final.