Property investor Paddy McKillen loses appeal on Barclays documents

Property investor Paddy McKillen has lost a High Court appeal over the release of documents which he claimed would show the Department of Finance had “inappropriate” contacts with representatives of the billionaire Barclay brothers.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan yesterday dismissed his appeal under the Freedom of Information Act against a November 2014 decision of the Information Commissioner related to the documents.

Mr McKillen had sought full access to 12 documents he believed would show the department was lobbied by interests linked to David and Frederick Barclay concerning acquisition of Mr McKillen’s “fully-performing” loans as part of a hostile takeover strategy concerning the London-based Maybourne hotel group.

Mr McKillen, as largest shareholder in Maybourne, vigorously opposed the takeover which led to litigation in England in 2012.

He claimed the Barclays sought, in 2011, to acquire his personal and corporate loans with the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) and lobbied both the Minister for Finance and Nama.

He sought the release of documents relating to the Department contacts but the Information Commissioner refused access to 12 documents.

He appealed to the High Court, where he said the documents could disclose efforts by Barclay interests to influence key persons in the department.

The matter concerned Mr McKillen’s loans in IBRC and no public interest justified such contacts because IBRC and Nama are independent statutory interests, it was argued.

The court heard the department refused access to 11 of the documents because, due to their being already subject of a High Court discovery order, that would amount to contempt of court.

Disclosure of a twelfth document, containing three emails to a department official, was refused on grounds that it contained sensitive information which the department said was not in the public interest to disclose.

The judge said Mr McKillen claimed there was a public interest in exposing the fact that the Minister for Finance appeared to favour the Barclays over him.

Any improper contact, if there was such, was disclosed by the release of the redacted record. The blacked-out information added nothing to the alleged impropriety at issue, he said.

The judge also said if there was a public interest — and it remained to be seen whether that had been established — the Information Commissioner was obliged to balance that interest against the potential harm that might result from disclosure.

He believed the Commissioner correctly carried out a balancing exercise.