The High Court has refused John Stanley Purcell’s challenges to a Central Bank inquiry into suspected contraventions by Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS). The court did not decide whether Purcell participated in any contravention; that question remained for the inquiry.
Purcell, a former INBS executive director and secretary, brought judicial review proceedings and a separate plenary action. He sought to stop the inquiry, challenge the Central Bank’s 2015 settlement with INBS and argue that Part IIIC of the Central Bank Act 1942 was unconstitutional. His claims included that the process was biased, oppressive and unfair, and that it would damage his good name and livelihood.
The Central Bank and the State respondents opposed the claims. They argued that earlier High Court findings in a similar case, Fingleton v Central Bank of Ireland, governed most of the issues, and that the inquiry was a regulatory process rather than a criminal trial or the administration of justice.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the recent Fingleton judgment should be followed on the issues it had already decided. Those included the Central Bank’s jurisdiction over former managers, the challenge to the INBS settlement, alleged bias and delay, and whether the inquiry could fairly proceed. The judge said four issues remained for decision in Purcell’s case: whether the inquiry amounted to the administration of justice, whether it imposed penal liability, whether the financial burden was oppressive, and whether that burden was disproportionate to the public interest.
The court rejected those remaining arguments. It held that the inquiry did not meet the established criteria for the administration of justice: it was an investigative step, its decisions were subject to appeal and required court confirmation to take effect, and financial regulation was not a function historically carried out by the courts. The judge also found that an inquiry finding would not itself impose criminal liability.
On costs, the judge said the inquiry might impose no sanction and might order Purcell to pay none of its costs. He described the complaint as premature and said the applicant’s insurance cover had been exhausted, but the inquiry could not be held responsible for inadequate cover. The judge also found no disproportion between the burden on Purcell and the public interest in examining INBS’s collapse, which he described as leaving a liability of about €5 billion.
The court refused the reliefs sought. The ruling did not determine the allegations against Purcell, and the proposed inquiry’s findings and any sanctions remained outstanding.