TDs seek to join case against notes
Ms Collins said the case raises important issues concerning powers the finance minister has under the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 — to make financial transactions.
The State argued that any such challenge may be pointless given the Government’s move to liquidate the IBRC, formerly Anglo.
The action by Mr Hall, of College Grove, Castleknock, Dublin, is aimed at preventing the State from making payments on foot of promissory notes issued from Mar 2010 in favour of IBRC, Educational Building Society, and Irish Nationwide Building Society.
During the hearing last month, Mr Hall argued that the finance minister was not entitled to pay the notes unless such payment was authorised by a Dáil vote. It was accepted by both sides during the hearing there was no such vote but the minister and State said Mr Hall did not have the necessary legal standing to bring the case and denied the specific mandate of the Dáil was required for payment of the notes.
In his judgment, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, ruled Mr Hall did not have the required legal standing and only a TD could bring such an action.
Mr Hall appealed to the Supreme Court and, when the appeal was mentioned yesterday, his counsel John Rogers asked for an urgent hearing. The case raised important issues about the payment of public monies without Dáil approval and four TDs wanted to be joined to it as plaintiffs and appellants, he said.
Mr Rogers urged the Supreme Court to, in the appeal, address the “principal issue”, the lawfulness of paying the promissory notes without Dáil approval.
Michael McDowell, for the State, said the appeal could only address the issue on which there was a High Court finding — legal standing. The proposed joining of the TDs was a bid to get around that finding, counsel added.
The State submitted that “under no circumstances” could the Supreme Court address the issue of the constitutionality of the legislation under which the promissory note payments were made, Mr McDowell said.
While the issue of payment of public monies was an “extremely important” matter, the High Court had ruled that Mr Hall had no legal standing to raise that, he said.
Mr McDowell also said it was “fairly obvious” matters had changed with the passage of the IBRC Act 2013 providing for the winding up of the bank and “reconfiguration” of the liabilities of the State to that bank.
The case did not deserve priority, he argued.
The Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, said an application could be made on Feb 15 seeking permission for the four deputies to be joined.
The Supreme Court would address what priority should be given to Mr Hall’s appeal later, she said.
