Commercial Court refuses call from Peter Darragh Quinn for delay in action

Peter Darragh Quinn, a nephew of bankrupt businessman Seán Quinn, has asked the Commercial Court not to proceed with an application by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) to assess damages against him until legal proceedings involving the Quinn family have concluded.

A High Court arrest warrant for Mr Quinn remains outstanding after he failed to surrender to serve a three month sentence for contempt. That warrant cannot be executed while he remains at his home in Northern Ireland.

In a letter to the court, Mr Quinn said he was appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) the High Court’s June 2012 finding that he engaged in a scheme to put asssets in the Quinn family’s international property group beyond the bank’s reach in contempt of court orders.

He said he had also appealed to the European court against the decision to jail him for three months over that contempt.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly refused Mr Quinn's request on grounds including that judgment in favour of the bank had already been granted against Mr Quinn.

Mr Quinn could not be heard by the court until he had purged his contempt, the judge said.

IBRC (in special liquidation) had last February secured judgment in default of appearance against Mr Quinn in its action aimed at preventing stripping of assets from the family’s international property group. A hearing to assess damages had been deferred to Thursday.

In a letter read into the court record by Mr Justice Kelly, Peter Darragh Quinn asked that IRBC’s application against him be deferred until after the full action involving the bank and members of the Quinn family, and his appeal to the European court, had concluded.

IBRC had in 2011 brought its proceedings against several companies and various Quinn family members, including Peter Darragh Quinn, alleging stripping of assets from the international property group.

Mr Quinn said in his letter that he “rejected the merits” of IBRC’s claim against him. Due to the committal order against him, he was unable to instruct lawyers to act on his behalf, he said.

He said his co-defendants were resisting the bank’s application in the family’s case on similar grounds to him. Any defence to the bank’s claim upheld by the courts in the co-defendants’ favour “would equally apply to me”, he said.

Mr Quinn said he “failed to see the urgency” of IRBC’s application for summary judgment. Any judgment against him would be “warped” and would become the subject of further appeal, he said

The general principle of proportionality and fairness dictated the application against him should be deferred until the other actions are determined, he added.

Shane Murphy SC, for IBRC, said it rejected the assertions by Mr Quinn in his letter. Mr Quinn had not entered a defence or an appearance to the bank’s claim and judgment had already been granted against him, counsel said.

The first the IBRC heard of any appeal by Mr Quinn to the ECHR was in the letter, counsel said. The contempt proceedings were not relevant to the application for damages to be assessed, he added.

An appeal by Peter Darragh Quinn had been lodged with the Supreme Court but had not been progressed, counsel said.

IBRC was itself, for administrative reasons, seeking a further adjournment of the assessment hearing, he said. Mr Justice Kelly said he would grant the bank a short adjournment but the matter would proceed on May 13th.

The judge said Peter Darragh Quinn “seemed to be under the misapprehension that the bank was seeking judgment against him” when judgment had already been granted and Mr Quinn had not offered any defence to the claim.