THREE parties against whom CountyGlen is taking actions are to challenge the admissibility of the inspector's report on the grounds that a section of the Companies Act relating to it is unconstitutional, the High Court was told yesterday.
The High Court had been hearing a preliminary issue on whether the report of the inspector, Mr Frank Clarke SC, into the affairs of CountyGlen, could be admitted as evidence under Section 22 of the Companies Act 1990.
Members of the Carway family brought the issue contesting its admissibility. The AIB and a firm of solicitors, defendants in later actions, also challenged its admissibility. CountyGlen argued that it was admissible.
Yesterday, Miss Justice Laffoy ruled that, by virtue of Section 22, the reports were admissible in all the actions on the basis of findings of primary facts.
After the determination, the three defendant parties said that they wanted to contest the constitutionality of the section.
The section reads: "The document purporting to be a copy of the report of an inspector appointed under the provisions of this act shall be admissible in any civil proceedings as evidence of the facts set out therein without, further proof unless the contrary is shown."
The judge said in her ruling the issue was the proper construction of the section and it did not go beyond that.
She could not have decided on its constitutionality. She said what had to be decided were the procedural steps to be taken at this point.
Dr Michael Forde SC, for the Carways, said that in view of the ruling, he would be contesting that the section was unconstitutional.
He said the Attorney General should now be present even in these preliminary arguments.
Ms Mary Finlay SC, for AIB said that the validity of the section should be determined. She submitted that the court should not proceed into evidence before the constitutional issue had been determined. It was a completely separate issue.
Ms Elizabeth Dunne, counsel for the firm of solicitors, said that something had arisen which required the validity of the section to be considered. It now appeared the section would be relied on to admit the report as evidence.
The provisions were unconstitutional and the challenge should go ahead at once.
For CountyGlen, Mr Michael Gleeson SC contended that the case should be opened and the court could see what facts in the report were to be relied upon. The admissibility could be decided when it was clear what facts CountyGlen wanted to use against each party.
Miss Justice Laffoy said she give her ruling today on what steps had to be taken on the procedural issue.