TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 18 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Challenge to promissory notes dismissed, court says TD could bring case

The Dublin businessman David Hall had taken a case against the State arguing that the issuing of the €31 billion promissory notes to the former Anglo Irish Bank is illegal as there was no Dáil vote.

David Hall with independent TD Stephen Donnelly and People Before Profit TD Joan Collins at the Four Courts last week.
David Hall with independent TD Stephen Donnelly and People Before Profit TD Joan Collins at the Four Courts last week.
Image: Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland

Updated 12pm

THE HIGH COURT has dismissed a case brought by a Dublin businessman challenging the legality of the promissory notes issued to the former Anglo Irish Bank.

The court ruled that David Hall does not have the standing or locus standi to take the case but said that a legal challenge could be mounted by a member of the Dáil.

Reacting on Twitter Hall, the director of the Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation, said: “Justice Kearns dismissed my case on the basis I don’t have standing to take the case that maybe it should be a TD! Jutted/democracy!”

In a detail judgement issued this afternoon, the High Court president Justice Nicholas Kearns said that Hall could not argue that he had been put in a position any different to any other citizen because of the promissory notes payment.

The judgement said that there was no evidence put before the court that declaring the notes illegal would “lead to only benefits for the plaintiff”.

Justice Kearns said there might be “every reason to suppose” that declaring the notes invalid would have “very serious adverse implications” for Hall, Irish citizens, the State’s finances and its financial reputation as well as Ireland’s ability to continue its recovery.

The judge also highlighted the significant delay there had been in bringing the action, two years after the issuing of the promissory notes and noted the “significant costs” arising from cases such as Hall brought which fall on the taxpayer.

The judge said that no member of Dáil Eireann was precluded from mounting the legal challenge that Hall had brought.

“Nothing in this judgment should be taken or construed as indicating what view the Court might take of the merits of such a claim if and when so brought,” the verdict states.

March repayment

Hall had brought a legal challenge against the €31 billion promissory notes, a form of IOU, arguing that they are illegal as their issuing in 2010 was not approved by a Dáil vote.

The notes were issued to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide – now the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation – in 2010 after it emerged that the banks had a major funding shortfall as a result of mounting losses in the wake of the collapse of the property bubble.

Not having the money to lend the banks, the State agreed to back – through the use of promissory notes – loans that the IBRC drew down from the Central Bank of Ireland.

Under this arrangement the State agreed to repay these IOUs over a 21-year period with payments of €3.06 billion due every year for the next ten years. The money that is repaid, with interest, to the Central Bank is taken out of circulation and is effectively destroyed.

The next payment is due on 31 March and the government is currently in negotiations with the European Central Bank seeking to reduce the cost of repayments.

In the High Court case the State, represented by senior counsel Michael McDowell, argued that the issuing of the notes did not require Dáil approval as the then Finance Minister Brian Lenihan had already been given powers under the Credit Institutions Stabilisation Act 2010.

Read: Noonan still chasing ‘good deal’ in promissory note talks

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (170 Comments)

  • Fair play to Hall. It’s down to TD’s now to mount a challenge… Who will it be?

    Reply
  • OK now go find a TD.

    Reply
  • Surely Judge Kearns ruling violates Article 40.1 of our constitution

    “Article 40.1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law”

    Yet he says David Hall is not entitled to challenge the prom notes but a TD is?

    Doesn’t seem equal to me

    Reply
    • My understanding of the ruling is that the case was taken questioning whether the Dail should voted on the prom notes. As Mr Hall would not have had a vote in the Dail he has no right to challenge it. Whether this is right or wrong is another matter.

      Reply
    • Fair play to David Hall, but any excuse would be used to dismiss his case.
      The treason against the Irish people runs deep.

      Reply
    • @Gerard, I don’t get this.

      So if the government broke the law with respect to the Dail, the only persons who can mount a challenge are Dail members? Really?

      Does this apply in other bodies where only members can bring matters to court?

      Reply
    • another crap judgement handed down the political classes these guys certainly do not forget who appoints them

      Reply
    • Okay, this is the principle of the way these things work — you need to be an involved party to bring a suit. You can’t sue the guy that leaves three doors down for doing something to the guy who leaves four doors down.

      When challenging laws this means that you either need to be the person directly effected by the laws or a recognized representative of those directly effected by the laws. In America, recently, for instance, part of the complication of court cases challenging marriage equality laws (or, conversely bans) is the court determining which groups are entitled to declare themselves as valid representatives of the people involved.

      What this ruling says, effectively, is that by the taking this case David Hall is claiming the mantle of being a representative of the interests of the Irish people generally, and not just himself specifically. But he has no standing as a representative of the Irish people. Only someone who has been granted by the Irish people permission to represent them could do so. I suspect the mention of being a TD is only an example rather than the only possible way to meet the requirement.

      Reply
    • Orwell said it best: ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
      The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

      Reply
    • Doesn’t seem right to me, TDs are our representatives. Now it turns out they are a privileged class in law? Where is the accountability!

      Reply
    • Yes you are correct. Will this then be challenged by D Hall

      Reply
  • Soon as I read ““Justice Kearns dismissed my case on the basis I don’t have standing to take the case that maybe it should be a TD” a voice in my head screamed the name STEPHEN DONNELLY.

    Though I’m not fussy, any TD who represents the Irish people instead of their Partys interests will do.

    Reply
    • Presumbly the TD would have to have been a TD at the time the notes were signed and therefore was deprived of a vote

      Reply
    • Sinn Feins Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin was part of that dail and is a member of a party that withdrew its support for the banking guarantee once it became the blanket guarantee.

      He’ll do nicely.

      Reply
    • werejammin

      Does he have the balls to £uck Europe, the way they £ucked us?

      One can live in hope that at least one member of the previous Dáil has the courage to stand up for the Irish people, cause the incumbents don’t.

      Reply
    • Since SF voted for the original promissory notes, don’t think Caoimghin O’Caoláin could mount the challenge. Only party that didn’t vote for it was Labour & they’re in Govt now…

      Reply
    • Sinn Fein withdrew their support for the guarantee when a senior member of YOUR party, fianna fail, decided to blanket guarantee all of the debt, a decision that has decimated our country.

      I know this, YOU know this, why the half truths and dishonesty?

      Try harder paul.

      Reply
    • Paul,

      There was no vote taken in the Dail on the promissory notes so Sinn Fein could not have voted in favour . The absence of a Dail vote is why David Hall took this legal action.

      Reply
  • Seriously!!! He is not a TD but as a citizen of Ireland he is one of the employers of all TDs as am I and I for one stand by David hall.

    Reply
  • Don’t be surprised if “justice” is skewed more and more towards the views and wishes of the government. After all Fine Gael and Labour were only a wet day in power before they made a rash of political appointments to the judiciary. In the good old tradition of Fianna Fail of course. Doing things differently. Not.

    Reply
    • Got to agree with you Con. This paragraph could come from any Government source, particularly the last line : “Justice Kearns said there might be “every reason to suppose” that declaring the notes invalid would have “very serious adverse implications” for Hall, Irish citizens, the State’s finances and its financial reputation as well as Ireland’s ability to continue its recovery.”

      Reply
  • “Nothing in this judgment should be taken or construed as indicating what view the Court might take of the merits of such a claim if and when so brought,” the verdict states.

    So – looking forward to Round 2 . Well done David Hall.

    Reply
  • Time to march on the GPO I think.

    Reply
  • Could make things very uncomfortable for the Government if Mr Hall’s case is successful.

    Reply
  • So the proceedings failed as he had no locus standi, not being a TD – and not on the basis of McDowell’s arguments?

    Well Shane Ross, care to step up to the mark?

    Reply
  • Are not all people of the country intitled to go to the courts for justice, or only certin sections permitted to seek justice. Things are getting so bad in this country I sometimes wonder if I am still living in Ireland. Is it Endas and Gilmores or no way ?.

    Reply
    • the day is coming very quickly William when we will remind the big boys who holds all the cards!! i’ve been warning them that if they continue to play their games it will be too late when the mob come to take back the power but they refuse to listen!! Ah well

      Reply
  • As Lord Diplock put it:

    “[i]t would…be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group…or even a single public spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped.”

    Reply
    • This case could not have been taken in Britain because 1 Britain has no facility for judicial review and 2 the state is sovereign over the people.

      Reply
    • Eoghan

      However in Ireland the constitution states

      Article 6
      1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

      Reply
    • This just means that the people are sovereign and not the state. It means that judicial review can take place but this does not mean that the applicant does not need to have locus standi.

      Reply
  • looks like it’s up to the opposition bench to produce a man/woman TD to bring this before a judge of the land. The judge does’t want to communicate with the ordinary person who pay his wages.

    Reply
  • And who drew up and approved the credit union stabilization act in 2010 that gave Lenihan sole power to lend 30 billion ???

    Reply
  • You are a patriot David Hall. It speaks volumes on the erosion of our democracy when the High court cowers behind a technicality in order to avoid passing judgement on the force feeding of these promissory notes down the throats of the Irish people.
    The response to this failure of justice is clear. One of our TDs needs to take another case to the High Court immediately. Stephen Donnelly is the obvious choice as werejammin and others have suggested. Other possibilities are Joe Higgins, Richard Boyd Barrett or Shane Ross.
    Michael McDowell deserves our contempt. An arrogant and pampered insider, he will defend to his last breath the establishment and the status quo which has rewarded him and his kind so well.

    Reply
    • it says more about us though, the fact we all sat by and watched the country being dragged down by these crazies and did nothing about it!! we have done absolutely nothing to try take back the power!! shame on us all as we are the ones that can force real change and until we show we want it, it will never be offered

      Reply
    • Gearoid,

      The was a display of mass civil disobedience by the people last year when 700k refused to pay the Household Charge. The protest will continue this year with a massive boycott of the Property tax and hopefully major resistance generally to the austerity agenda.
      Agreed we have been slow to action so far but the sands are beginning to shift under the feet of the elite.

      Reply
  • I wonder how long it will it take for a definitive answer on the subject? Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or years? Is Paddy Power giving any odds?

    Reply
    • I’d say Marlon on the day of my unborn child’s wedding, Gerry Adam’s son will be telling the nation that a deal is within grasp and it’s only a matter of time and just to keep monitoring the sittee-ation ;)

      Reply
    • Sorry… My years in Ireland has changed me… I am now an optimistic cynic.

      Reply
    • Debbie the most depressing aspect of your comment is the thought that all those years from now there might still be people voting for the Adams family.

      Reply
    • This ruling is incredulous and further proof that the justice system in Ireland is also warped.
      David Hall took this case as a citizen on behalf of citizens, but that doesnt give him legal standing and a TD does!????
      Scandalous ruling

      Reply
    • LOL! I tell you…. I don’t care how down I can be. Or how the challenges of life may twist me about…. The one thing I can I always count on… Is our government, political and judicial systems to make me laugh. How can a bunch of “educated altrustic” individuals consistently get it so wrong.

      It is almost as if…. When the correct answer appears… They instinctually decide on the alternative “wrong” answer.

      Reply
    • censored 31/01/13 #

      Well Ciaran, hopefully by then the Kenny gene pool will have died off due to natural selection. I thought Debbie’s comment was pretty funny as she put Enda’s words in somebody’s else’s mouth. Maybe they are all the same, but there’s cynicism for you.

      Reply
    • Since my last honest, factual post was taken down.
      All I’ll say is

      Mr McDowell, that fine, decent ex politician
      On a fine, decent, politician’s salary
      Is representing the state?

      When did you start representing the state Mr McDowell??

      Reply
    • Michael Mc Dowell
      An ex member of one of the governments that destroyed Ireland.
      Is this not a conflict of interests??

      Reply
  • Justice Kearns does this mean the Government is above the law?

    Article 40 of the Constitution
    1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

    Reply
    • Article 40 may not be relevant in this instance. Bear in mind that Person A cannot sue Person B for damages arising from an action by Person C if Person A is unrelated to the case. This doesn’t affect equality, it simply puts limits on who can take actions. Not everyone is entitled to take any case to court.

      I’m not a legal expert and I can’t comment definitively for that reason but I suspect that the full judgement is probably a bit more nuanced than the comments here give it credit for. Why on earth wasn’t it brought up by the opposition TD’s if there was a shadow of a case? Not implying that the case itself is weak but more a criticism of the Opposition. After all, it is their job.

      Reply
    • Two very large hole’s in your argument.

      1. The only opposition that could take the case are SF or the independents, who were elected to the previous Dáil. FF & the Greens were in Government at the time, while FG & Labour are now in power. I don’t think any member of FG, Labour or FF elected to the previous or current Dáil are going to take up the case. Do you? So unless SF have the balls, the Irish citizens £ucked over again by the elected & appointed “elite”.

      2. Let us assume Person A is a normal Irish citizen. Person B is The Government. While Person C is the Troica or ECB or IMF or whom ever the is forcing Person B to issue the promissory notes. In this case Person A (Irish citizen), is affected by the actions of Person C (Troika or ECB or IMF or whomever the is forcing Person B to issue the promissory notes), because Person C (Troika or ECB or IMF or whomever the is forcing Person B to issue the promissory notes) is requiring/forcing Person B (The Government), to undertake actions that have a direct affect on Person A (Irish citizen).

      However what is more worrying to me is the fact that Mr. Justice Kearns appears to have granted The Government powers to act, against the wishes without even considering the wishes of the people and quite possibly the common good, even though, Article 6 states;
      “All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.”

      Reply
    • Hi Carcu,

      Those are fair points. Thanks for taking the time to do a reasoned response!

      As I say, I’m not a legal expert so can’t really give conclusive answers. But it should be noted that there was a large Opposition when the bailout passed. In other words, it really should have been challenged when it happened (when FG and Labour were in Opposition). The ruling appears to allude to this in the context of the time it took to launch the challenge.

      My argument was badly worded (the one involving the rather poorly phrased “Person A|Person B” example). I was merely using it to point out that a person may be ineligible to take a case to court while still being equal under the law. It was a general point rather than actually directed at the case. However, the wording of the text above reads “Hall could not argue that he had been put in a position any different to any other citizen because of the promissory notes payment”. This suggests the court may have interpreted his claim as one of personal injury or discrimination, which in fairness it isn’t (as all of us are damaged by the drain on public finances). In that case, his case would have to be dismissed as happened.

      I should point out again that this is all speculation on my part. I am not a lawyer nor well-familiarised with the case in question. I’m merely playing Devil’s Advocate to try and add some balance to the majority of comments. Thanks again for the response!

      Reply
  • Not too many ‘we can’t burn the bondholders’ on this morning
    are we sleeping in lads?

    Reply
  • @ScrapCrokePark, That’s the thing, the judge has basically kicked the can down the road into the Supreme Court, probably not wanting to rule on the substantive issue on his own! As one of the people who will be ultimately paying through his nose for this decision to bail out banks, it’s very hard to see how it can be argued that he doesn’t have a right to challenge the constitutionality of the decision in court, that is unless he makes a pleb of himself by becoming a TD.

    Reply
  • Dave 31/01/13 #

    Just on twitter that challenge has been dismissed! :-(

    Reply
  • What is disappointing about this judgement is that it was probably the only chance Ireland will get at changing the terms of the Promissory Notes. If the judge rendered that they breached the constitution then the ECB would have little choice but to accept Ireland’s proposal to restructure the notes by issuing a longer dated bond with a more favourable interest rate.Whilst this would be embarrassing for the government it would give us a stronger hand.

    Reply
  • Back in your box, Paddy!

    How dare you take on the people running this country.

    Resistance is futile.

    Reply
    • I HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR OUR COUNTRIES COURTS, LEGAL SYSTEM WHATEVER YOU CALL IT. I’M SO FURIOUS THE CAP LOCK IS STAYING ON. ALL DAY.

      FURIOUS FLYNN

      Reply
    • Perhaps you should gain some respect? If you don’t like the way the courts work (I’m not a fan myself) the best option isn’t to take the Sean Quinn option and ignore their judgements. Instead, why don’t you write letters, influence public opinion and debate your opponents in a civilised manner? You could raise awareness and possibly stimulate much-needed reform?

      To shout online that you have no respect for something that is absolutely fundamental accomplishes nothing. The principle demands respect. The actuality demands reform.

      Capslock doesn’t help anything.

      Reply
    • Hi Dave,

      I have written e-mails to my local TD’s on numerous occasions about various issues which are/were very badly dealt with by the powers that be. Weather it be sexual assaults, promissory notes, cuts to the elderly, I get back the usual watery garbage.

      Unfortunately emails and peaceful protests achieve nothing.

      So I have resorted to CAPS lock.

      Sincerly,
      Mr Flynn

      Reply
    • Kudos on trying to make a difference by talking to your local politicians. That and dialogue are really the only ways forward. Not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with capslock apart from it being wearisome to the eye, but just don’t imagine that it accomplishes much.

      Still, who knows what seeds your past correspondence have sown that may not yet bear fruit? One can but hope.

      Sincerely,

      David

      Reply
    • You seem like a decent guy, so ? serious question….What is the next step because I feel like I am living in a very badly run and shady country.

      If they ignore peaceful protest and emails, what then?

      It’s clear the courts can’t be trusted, ie sexual assault pay offs etc

      It’s clear the government can’t be trusted ie broken nearly all promises.

      Or is it just me who feels like this?

      Reply
  • Odd legal strategy.

    It was reasonably predictable that the judge would find he had no locus standi.

    Since it presented the court with a relatively simple ‘out’, it seems logical to me that you would be extra careful to avoid giving the court the option of selecting it in order to dismiss your action.

    The thing is that the solution was relatively simple…..have the TD’s on the proceedings. Which begs the question, since they appear to support the action, why weren’t they?

    Reply
  • 1% holding all the cards. Something has to give

    Reply
  • An outrageous decision that an ordinary citizen has no standing in these matters.
    We should just put up, shut up and pay up – that is the message.

    Was Kearns not linked to the PDs at some stage?

    Reply
  • David Hall: “Justice Kearns dismissed my case on the basis I don’t have standing to take the case that maybe it should be a TD! Jutted/democracy!”

    Reply
  • Donnellys time to shine. Step up Donnelly!!!

    Reply
  • Questions need to be asked about this ruling of injustice here being done, the second time in a row this judge Nicolas Kearns who over ruled illegal on the children’s referendum now the promissory notes , he has over ruled twice against all odds, questions need to be answered whether this judgement is legal or illegal, my guess illegal and corruption has been drawn to the conclusion, I hope justice Kearns takes full responsibilities for white wash crime, and if Ireland goes bust he should be charged and this government too brought to justice for f…. up Irelands economy, this is the last draw after this repeat of white wash crime regime cover up.

    Reply
  • I’ll say it again Stephen Donnelly TD seems to be one of the only competent politicians we have,he should take on the case as apparently we the people have no standing in this matter even though we the people are paying for it! Outrageous ruling and quite frankly insulting.
    Not to worry our brainiest politician Noonan is DEALING with the promissory note problem or private bank debt which is what it really is!
    Does anyone understand him when he speaks? I don’t .

    Reply
  • Unfortunately we are in for the long haul. How unfortunate. Thats the only way of life we know in this country. Question now is, how long would it have taken us to get out of this mess? Nobody will really knows that answer either. I have to say we are a quiet lot to just sit down and watch this all unfold around us. The funny thing about this Merry-go-round is that it just isent funny anymore as the promises are broken and the ahh it will do attitude remains the same for younger generation. The more things change the more they stay the same.
    Yup your local TD will come knocking at your door ( if you are lucky) with an air of authentisity for a new brighter future. This merry-go-round has to stop.
    I dont have any answers but i feel sick and its time to step off.

    Reply
  • On a light hearted note .Did you hear about the judge with no balls .He was known as justice mickey

    Reply
  • Judge Kearns noted the “significant costs” arising from cases such as Hall brought which fall on the taxpayer. This legal costs are utterly insignificant in comparison to the €47 billion of Promissory notes which the Irish people are being forced to swallow.
    The judge would be much better advised to earn the €283,000 annual salary which the taxpayer generously provides him and make a ruling on the substantive issue rather than hiding behind a ‘locus standi’ technicality.

    Reply
  • Is there any sitting TD’S actively sitting that will take this case who we’re elected at the time the promissory notes were issued? And if a case could be taken what are the chances of a winning result? Obviously Mr Hall thought there was a chance. If the case against the promissory notes was sucessfull does that mean the they then become nul and void?

    Reply
  • It looks like the ordinary people of Ireland might succeed where our useless inept government coulden’t
    I mean what do we pay these people for

    Reply
  • People won’t put up with this carry on for much longer. When the people cannot access justice through the usual channels history shows us they are inclined to seek justice through alterior routes. These politicians in wigs need to cop themselves on before they find a lynch mob waiting for them outside their courtrooms.

    Reply
  • Yep I can defo see the judge doing the right thing here!

    Reply
  • SamEire 31/01/13 #

    One answer. Shinner majority in the next govt. Im no supporter but the only party at the moment in a position to tell the ecb to feck off. Politely of course..

    Reply
  • Ok then, but was Stephen Donnelly TD not with him in the court? Could he not just put his name on the paperwork and solve that problem at least?

    Reply
    • In a word, no.

      Could’ve been done before the trial, but once the case had been opened, would have been essentially impossible. Won’t be possible to have the TDs join in for the Supreme Court, either – would suggest to any interested TDs to get on to Mr. Rogers and get their proceedings issued pronto.

      Reply
  • Save your money for the beef baron bailout.

    Reply
  • Michael Lowry TD has more standing in the Irish Courts than an ordinary decent Irish citizen

    Reply
  • High court and supreme court judges are appointed by the government. The people of this nation gave the government more power over the judges in the last referendum. There needs to be serious reform over how judges are appointed. This will not happen .

    Reply
  • http://www.ictu.ie/jobsnotdebt/

    FEB 9TH TO REGISTER YOUR ANGER ON THE STREETS AGAINST THIS SHIT FOR A DEMOCRACY WE’VE BEEN FORCE FED.

    IT’S HIGH TIME WE AS A NATION OF PROUD AND STRONG PEOPLE TOOK BACK THE BALANCE OF POWER IN OUR FAVOUR AS WE ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE THE COUNTRY TURN.

    DON’T LET YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILY, NEIGHBOURS OR FRIENDS DOWN BY CONTINUING TO DO NOTHING, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE JOIN US ALL AT YOUR LOCAL PROTEST AND WATCH HOW QUICK THINGS CHANGE IF WE KEEP THE PRESSURE ON

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE \O/

    Reply
  • wonder if justice kearns is a bondholder ? this decision stinks of underhand dealings.

    Reply
  • Relax, this is Ireland the Judge will change his mind in a couple of days

    Reply
  • Michael mcDowell representing the state, how convenient when his party played a part in Bankrupting it! Where’s Sinn Fein now, Adams is a lawyer or does he not want to rock the boat in case he gets into coalition?

    Reply
    • The decision was handed down 90 mins ago, can you keep your bias against sinn fein to yourself until everybodys had a chance to at least respond?

      Reply
    • Biased, Gerry adams is a Lawyer and politician. Why did it take a private citizen to do it, do the politicians not know the laws that already exist and I am bi-ased against people that should know these things!

      Reply
    • “Gerry adams is a Lawyer and politician. Why did it take a private citizen to do it,”

      Eh, because to all intents and purposes a private citizen should be able to tak eit. David Halls not a stupid man, he would not have proceeded if he had known the judge would dismiss on the grounds he was not a TD.

      And AGAIN with the Gerry Adams. Why keep mentioning him. He’s under no obligation to take the case, O’Cailean would be more suited, and he’s under n obligation either.

      Why the bias?

      Reply
    • Gerry Adams is not a lawyer, seriously, if you’re sole intention is coming here and mentioning someone who had no hand or part in this debacle or was indeed responsible for this promissory note nor indeed has anything to do with this topic then try and commit facts not bulls**t.
      You’ve mentioned he’s a lawyer twice, so you’re wrong twice and those who gave you green thumbs are as ignorant and devoid of facts as you are.

      Reply
    • You’re right, he is not and I must have mistaken Lawmaker to Lawyer. Anyway, he has been in politics a long time and I am very surprised he and others didn’t know about this law? Why didn’t FG take the case, when in opposition with Labour and why our lawmakers don’t know all this stuff! Aren’t they paid well, to know this stuff?

      Reply
    • My apologies for such a rash retort Stephen.

      Anyway, you have about as much chance of getting a FG member taking this case on as you’d have with a FF member taking it, for FF it would be an admittance of utter failure as politicians and well FG/Labour – them bankers wouldn’t look to kindly on their best friends betraying them, FG/Lab would rather work against us than for us and nothing can be more blatantly obvious.

      Reply
    • gerry adams is not a lawyer, as for not rocking the boat, we will wait see and i am sure you will object to that as well.

      Reply
  • i thought we had a President who’s supposed to watch out for ALL the people of this country.
    DON’T HE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY .????

    Reply
  • sent to Editor Irish Times yesterday but not published …..

    Sir,

    The action taken by Mr David Hall in relation to the Promissory Note, if we agree it to be unanimously supported by the citizens of this country, should have the support of the Court in so far as said court has a duty of care to the Irish people in all matters resulting from the actions of the Oireachtas.

    Every citizen has a ‘right’ to ask questions of the Oireachtas and to make a stand against an action with which he/she deems unjust. The judiciary can not arbitrarily remove that right.

    Whether or not the Minister has adhered to the procedures stated in Article 21 of the Constitution in relation to Money Bills, he has not acted in the interest of the people. The promissory note is without question a device arising from the financial burden ‘volunteered’ on the Irish people by the Oireachtas and used to impose unlawful taxes in favour of private business interests located outside this State.

    Politics is not an activity separate to the people; it involves them most directly. Mr Hall is a stakeholder in the political and civil affairs that affect him, as are the rest of the people. I believe the Oireachtas has indeed the authority to use financial instruments to raise finance to pay for public services and any costs which are GENERATED BY and can be CHARGED BACK TO the citizens. That is called running the country.

    THIS IS NOT OUR DEBT!!!!

    SOMEBODY GAMBLED ON THE IRISH ECONOMY AND LOST!!

    ….. You don’t go to the race track and bet a million Euro on a horse and when it hobbles in last tell the guy standing next to you he owes you a million Euro!

    Reply
  • The full United Nations Document is avaiable on the web from which this excerpt is taken.

    THE CONCEPT OF ODIOUS DEBT IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
    Prof. Robert Howse
    Abstract
    The concept of “odious debt” regroups a particular set of equitable considerations that have
    often been raised to adjust or sever debt obligations in the context of political transitions,
    based on the purported odiousness of the previous regime and the notion that the debt it
    incurred did not benefit, or was used to repress, the people. This paper begins with an
    exploration of the grounds of the “odious debt” concept in basic international law structures
    and principles. The international law obligation to repay debt has never been accepted as
    absolute, and has been frequently limited or qualified by a range of equitable considerations,
    some of which may be regrouped under the concept of “odiousness.” This is consistent with
    the accepted view that equity constitutes part of the content of “the general principles of law
    of civilized nations”, one of the fundamental sources of international law stipulated in the
    Statute of the International Court of Justice. At the same time, most debt contracts between
    States and private creditors are governed by the domestic private law specified in the
    contract. The legal systems of these jurisdictions may well have concepts such as “clean
    hands” or the notion that contracts related to illegal purposes are invalid. These concepts
    overlap with elements of the notion of “odiousness” as a basis for invalidating debt
    obligations. Investor/state arbitration tribunals, for example, have been comfortable taking
    into account such considerations in determining whether repudiation of contractual
    obligations to an investor by the host State is consistent with international law. This suggests
    that such concepts may indeed form part of the content of equity as “a general principle of
    law of civilized nations”, especially if widely shared among different legal systems.

    Reply
  • Bill66 31/01/13 #

    Any td out there going to take a case….?

    Reply
  • Such time wasters

    Reply

Add New Comment