Quinns cannot cross-examine liquidator, High Court rules

Businessman Sean Quinn and members of his family cannot cross-examine a liquidator following claims they may be hiding upto €500 million in undisclosed assets, the High Court ruled.

The Quinns had sought to cross-examine Irish Bank Resolution Corporation ( IBRC) liquidator Kieran Wallace after he alleged unidentified informants had provided details of alleged efforts to put Quinn assets beyond the reach of the bank.

IBRC is suing Mr Quinn and members of his direct and related family, along with a number of companies, alleging conspiracy to put assets in the Quinn international property group beyond the reach of the bank which seeking repayment of hundreds of millions worth of loans.

In May, IBRC brought an ex-parte application (only one side represented) informing the High Court that Mr Wallace had new information obtained from US and English courts in support of the Irish conspiracy case, including the material from unidentified informants.

The Quinns then asked the court to allow their side cross-examine Mr Wallace claiming his (Wallace’s) information presented to court was done to cast them in a bad light before the court and among the public in general. They also claimed it gave a litigation advantage to IBRC over them.

The Quinns claimed the IBRC application was done for an improper motive. It was made on a Friday and although only one side was represented, it had been leaked to the media that it was taking place with the result there was extensive, hostile, coverage of them over the following weekend, they claimed.

Mr Justice Brian McGovern, dismissing their application to cross-examine, said the evidence of how journalists came to be in court was inconclusive. It was not unusual for journalists to be present when a call-over of cases for the following week is being made, he said.

It would have been a matter of public interest and one would have expect it would be reported. It was undesirable if the media were alerted for the purpose obtaining a litigious advantage but that did not arise here, he said.

He was satisfied IBRC made the application last May merely to update the court at the earliest opportunity on information which had come to light as a result of the US and English proceedings.

The judge noted that since Mr Wallace’s swore the new information, there had been no replying affidavit from the

Quinn side challenging that information.

The cross-examination of Mr Wallace is not relevant to any issue that has to be determined at the conspiracy trial and would serve no useful purpose, he said.