The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael P. Fingleton’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to dismiss or permanently stay civil proceedings brought by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (in special liquidation) and Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS). The claim, now valued by the respondents at about €290 million, may proceed to trial in a reduced form.
The respondents allege that Fingleton was negligent or breached his duties as an INBS director in authorising or approving five series of loans advanced between 2006 and 2009. They say the loans caused losses to the society. These remain allegations; the Court of Appeal did not decide whether they are true. Fingleton denies liability, and his defence includes arguments that other staff or bodies were responsible, that the loans would have proceeded on the same terms without his involvement, and that the property-market crash was unforeseeable.
The proceedings began in 2012. The original claim sought €6.031 billion and covered a much wider period and range of alleged failings. During the appeal hearing, counsel for the respondents confirmed that they were limiting the damages claim to five series of loans: Devondale Limited; Louis Scully; loans connected with Colpy Limited and Cyril Dennis; Admiral Taverns Limited and related companies; and Galliard Developments (Sully) Limited. The court proceeded on the basis that claims concerning alleged failures to disclose breaches of duty and expenses had also been withdrawn, as they were not addressed in submissions. The respondents valued the remaining claim at €65 million plus £220 million.
Fingleton, who suffered a major stroke in 2019, lacks capacity to give evidence or instruct his lawyers. His son’s affidavit described the difficulty of defending the original, broad claim without his direct input. The appeal court found that the case had since narrowed substantially and that the application had not provided evidence of unavailable defence witnesses or missing loan records. It said documents could establish many issues, while other witnesses and expert evidence could address matters relevant to the loan transactions.
The court acknowledged that Fingleton’s inability to participate was a significant litigation disadvantage. But it said that, on the evidence before it, this did not establish a real and serious risk of an unfair trial or unjust result, clear and patent injustice, or an inexcusable and unfair burden. It therefore dismissed the appeal. The court did not determine liability or damages; those questions remain for trial.