The High Court has ordered further disclosure from defendants in litigation brought by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation), Quinn Investments Sweden A.B. and Leif Baecklund, finding that affidavits sworn in response to earlier asset and document disclosure orders had not fulfilled the defendants’ obligations.
Mr Justice Kelly’s judgment, delivered on 10 July 2013, followed five days of cross-examination. The plaintiffs had sought further disclosure across 14 categories after challenging the defendants’ affidavits. The court had previously ruled that the defendants could be cross-examined on those affidavits.
The judge said the July 2012 orders required individual disclosure of relevant documents within each defendant’s possession, power or procurement. He found that relying on documents disclosed by other defendants did not satisfy that personal obligation, and that the disclosure overall was incomplete. He also found shortcomings concerning employment contracts and salaries, bank account records and transactions, company ownership, rent records, the companies Cranre and Neacad, legal fees involving Senat and Eversheds, and deleted electronic documents.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ requests for disclosure in most categories. These included schedules of relevant documents that had been deleted or were no longer held, explanations of deletion policies, employment-contract material (excluding Brenda Quinn), rent-roll records from Seán Quinn Jr. and Stephen Kelly, company ownership documents, records tracing money from IPG companies, bank account transaction histories, documents concerning resolutions dated 26 April 2011, and material relating to Cranre, Neacad and money transferred to Senat and Eversheds.
The judge limited the request concerning material provided to accountants to documents relating to KBG Accountants, excluding the broader request for material sent to other tax or financial advisers. He did not order an explanation on oath of the relationship between Senat, Eversheds and the defendants, ruling that this went beyond what was permissible at that stage. He also refused a request that defendants produce relevant documents held by Eversheds, saying they could not comply with it; the plaintiffs could seek a non-party discovery order against the firm if appropriate. A separate category was unnecessary in light of the order concerning Senat and Eversheds.
The judgment concerns disclosure in ongoing proceedings. It did not decide at trial whether the alleged steps to place IPG assets beyond the plaintiffs’ reach were wrongful. Justice Kelly said he would set the time for compliance with the orders.