The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael P. Fingleton’s appeal against a refusal to stop civil proceedings brought by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited and Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS). The case may proceed to trial on claims concerning five series of loans, with the trial judge responsible for monitoring whether the process remains fair.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2024, Mr Justice Woulfe said a defendant’s inability to give evidence or instruct lawyers because of ill health does not, by itself, justify dismissing a civil claim before trial. The defendant must establish, in light of all the circumstances, that a fair trial is not possible or that serious unfairness would result. The jurisdiction is exceptional and must be used rarely.
The proceedings began in 2012. The respondents initially sought €6.031 billion in damages, alleging negligence and breaches of duty in connection with INBS lending and losses. The claims were allegations, not findings. During the Court of Appeal hearing, the respondents limited their damages claim to five series of loans advanced between 2006 and 2009. They put its approximate value at €65 million for loans advanced in Ireland and £220 million for loans advanced in England, then described the combined amount as about €290 million.
Fingleton, who held senior roles at INBS, has been represented in the proceedings by his lawfully appointed attorneys. The High Court accepted that his physical and mental capacities had significantly deteriorated and that he could not meaningfully participate in a trial. It nevertheless refused his application to dismiss or permanently stay the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in May 2023.
The Supreme Court agreed that the evidence presented did not establish the required level of prejudice. It noted that the remaining claims were more dependent on records concerning the loans, and that the appellant had not shown that the relevant files were incomplete or that other potential witnesses could not be found. The Court also considered the arguments about poor historical record-keeping too general to justify stopping the case at this stage. Whether any specific gaps in evidence cause unfairness can be assessed by the trial judge against the evidence actually presented.
The Court said the potential reputational harm from allegations is normally of only slight consequence in deciding whether to dismiss a claim, while leaving open the possibility that special circumstances could make it relevant. The absence of culpable delay by a plaintiff does not bar the court from using this jurisdiction, but it raises the threshold for dismissal.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court did not determine whether the loan claims are true or whether Fingleton breached any duty. The underlying proceedings remain to be tried, with fairness issues to be kept under review during the trial.