This site uses cookies to improve your experience and to provide services and advertising. By continuing to browse, you agree to the use of cookies described in our Cookies Policy. You may change your settings at any time but this may impact on the functionality of the site. To learn more see our Cookies Policy.
OK
Dublin: 12 °C Wednesday 26 June, 2019
Advertisement

High Court refuses 'radical' application by Sean Quinn's children in case against IBRC

Justice Garrett Simons said there was ‘no realistic basis’ for the application.

Sean Quinn Jr leaving the Four Courts last week.
Sean Quinn Jr leaving the Four Courts last week.
Image: RollingNews.ie

THE HIGH COURT has refused an application by the children of Sean Quinn to amend the case they are taking against Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC).

The case relates to loans of €2.34 billion that were provided by Anglo Irish Bank to Quinn Companies. It is the case of the Quinn children that they received no legal advice in relation to these loans and, although they signed various documents related to them, they were only shown the “signature page” which they then signed.

The Quinns deny any liability for share pledges and guarantees in relation to these loans in this case against IBRC – the successor to Anglo.

The application made before Justice Garrett Simons sought to include an allegation of undue influence against Sean Quinn. 

The judge said that the allegation in question was not included in the earlier stages of the proceedings and would be “entirely inconsistent with the manner in which the litigation has been conducted to date”.

In denying the application, Simons said the amendment would amount to a “radical change” the case and “is not merely a matter of detail or a shift in emphasis”.

The judge said the allegation in question was not included in the earlier stages of the proceedings and would be “entirely inconsistent with the manner in which the litigation has been conducted to date”.

“This radical change is combined with the jettisoning of the previous claim that it was the officials of the Bank who exerted undue influence. This is such a vastly different case that there is no realistic basis for saying that it was implicit or latent in the existing proceedings. It simply is not there,” Simons said in the judgement.

Comments are closed as legal proceedings are ongoing

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

About the author:

Rónán Duffy

Read next:

COMMENTS