The High Court has ruled that an existing Austrian restraint order does not prevent an Irish proceeds-of-crime case from continuing over money held in an Austrian bank account.
In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2006, Finnegan P. rejected the respondents’ submission that the Irish court should cede jurisdiction to the Austrian court. The ruling addressed whether the case could proceed; it did not make the disposal order sought by the applicant.
The proceedings were brought by special summons under section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The applicant seeks an order concerning sums standing to the respondents’ credit in an Austrian bank. The respondents had also sought to dismiss the case, arguing that it was not properly commenced under the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 and could not proceed by special summons. The judge rejected that submission, relying on reasons given in an earlier case, McK v G, whose judgment was under appeal to the Supreme Court at the time.
The respondents’ further objection concerned an Austrian court’s preliminary injunction, made on 27 June 1997, restraining the accounts. The judgment records that the injunction remained in force pending final disposal of the Austrian proceedings, and that the Austrian prosecutor had applied for a permanent confiscation order. The judge described that application as information he had been given.
The respondents argued that comity between courts required the Irish court to defer to Austria. They also submitted that they could not ensure compliance with an Irish order without the Austrian court’s agreement.
Finnegan P. said the High Court could act against parties within its jurisdiction by requiring them to take steps within their power concerning assets abroad. A section 4 order, if later made, could transfer whatever estate, right and title the respondents had in the funds to the Minister or another person determined by the court. The judgment stressed that release of the funds would still have to be dealt with in Austria, and that the Irish court would not be deciding questions of Austrian law.
The judge concluded that the Austrian order was not a bar to the applicant proceeding further. The judgment does not determine the ultimate disposition or release of the money.