High Court rules that former NIB director must face cross-examination

The High Court has ruled that a former director of National Irish Bank must attend court for the purpose of being cross examined.

The Director of Corporate Enforcement, who has brought proceedings against Barry Seymour and other directors and officials of NIB under the Companies Act for orders restraining them from being involved in management of any company, had sought the order directing Mr Seymour to attend for cross-examination in proceedings to come before the court next month.

Mr Seymour (67), who lives in England, had argued through his lawyers that his attendance for cross-examination was not necessary to resolve the issues in the hearing.

Ruling yesterday, Mr Justice Diarmuid O'Donovan said Mr Seymour, who was the executive director and the de facto chief executive of NIB between April 1994 and July 1996, must attend.

If Mr Seymour failed to attend, affidavits he has sworn will not be included in the action, the judge said. Without cross-examination it would be difficult, if not impossible for the trial judge to come to a reasoned conclusion with regard to the commercial probity of Mr Seymour, the judge said.

The proceedings arise from the July 2004 report by the inspectors appointed under the Companies Act to investigate the affairs of NIB and NIB Financial Services Ltd between 1988 and 1998.

The inspectors concluded both companies were involved in a number of improper practices. They also held that responsibility for the improper practices which existed rested with the senior management of the bank during the 10 years covered by the inspectors' investigation.

The NIB inspectors accepted Mr Seymour took remedial measures to address problems evident from the audit reports, but did not accept he prosecuted those measures sufficiently vigorously having regard to the scale of the problems. In his judgment, Mr Justice O'Donovan said it was clear that Mr Seymour strenuously disputes "all and any criticisms of his conduct" in the inspector's report. This rejection "was a justification for testing by cross examination the reliability and reasonableness of the contrary views expressed by Mr Seymour".