Supreme Court refuses Quinn deferring order

The Supreme Court has refused to grant an order deferring the court cross-examination next month of the children and other family members of jailed businessman Seán Quinn concerning disclosure of their bank accounts and assets.

Martin Hayden SC, for the Quinns, applied for the stay pending the hearing of the Quinns’ Supreme Court appeal against the order of Mr Justice Peter Kelly directing their cross-examination on January 24th and 25th next. A date for the appeal has yet to be fixed.

Mr Justice Kelly had directed the five Quinn children and two of their spouses – Niall McPartland and Karen Woods – should be cross-examined concerning affidavits disclosing their assets and accounts.

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), formerly Anglo Irish Bank, sought the cross-examination after saying it did not believe the Quinns had made full disclosure. They insist they have.

Yesterday, Mr Hayden argued his clients would be prejudiced if the cross-examination proceeded prior to the appeal as that would mean “the cat’s out of the bag” and there was an issue of potential contempt. “You can’t put the genie back into the bottle.”

The cross-examination was not warranted where his clients had said they had complied with disclosure orders and there was also no basis for the bank’s claims that all six of them were controlling the entire process, he added. Each of his clients had their own entitlements and rights and were entitled to the presumption of innocence.

IBRC, represented by Shane Murphy SC, rejected those arguments, said these were not contempt proceedings and submitted that the cross-examination would be very focused.

Giving the three-judge court’s ruling, Chief Justice Ms Justice Susan Denham said the stay was sought in the context of a continuing hearing of proceedings and that meant there was a heavy onus on the Quinns to show they were entitled to such a stay.

The cross-examination arose on foot of account freezing orders granted on consent last July, she noted. The court wished to stress the cross-examination did not involve contempt proceedings and the court accepted the bank’s statement it would be a focused cross-examination that would not stray beyond the directed parameters, she said.