ARTICLE
20 December 2011

Recent Supreme Court Decision On Compliance With Fair Procedures

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
The Supreme Court recently quashed certain findings of the Ansbacher Inspector’s Report, ruling that the findings in question were made in excess of the jurisdiction which had been granted to the inspectors appointed to investigate and report on illegal offshore accounts.
Ireland Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Byrne v His Honour Judge O'Leary and Others 1

The Supreme Court recently quashed certain findings of the Ansbacher Inspector's Report, ruling that the findings in question were made in excess of the jurisdiction which had been granted to the inspectors appointed to investigate and report on illegal offshore accounts.

The findings, relating to the affairs of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited, were made against a Mr. John Byrne. The issue before the court was that Mr Byrne's evidence had been given in the presence of only two of the four appointed inspectors. In this regard, a subsequent order of the High Court had provided that evidence given before some but not all inspectors could form the basis of findings contained in the report, provided that the 'veracity' of such evidence was not in doubt. This same order stated that where the 'veracity' of evidence was in doubt, it would be necessary to have the evidence in question given again, in the presence of all inspectors.

The report's findings against Mr Byrne entirely contradicted the evidence which he had given. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that it could not be said that the 'veracity' of his evidence was not in doubt. From this, it was necessary to quash findings which had been based on this evidence.

This decision serves to emphasise the fundamental importance of fair procedures in all processes which can result in adverse findings as against individuals. In this instance, in circumstances where the truth of his original testimony was in doubt, Mr. Byrne was entitled to give his evidence again in the presence of all inspectors. By way of more general application, this decision clearly demonstrates that to ensure compliance with fair procedures, best practice is to have all decision-makers present to hear evidence which may form the basis of findings arrived at or decisions made.

Footnotes

1. Byrne V His Honour Judge O'Leary and Others [2011] IESC 38.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More