No date set for hearing INBS contempt case

A finding of contempt of court will remain hanging over the chief executive of the Irish Nationwide Building Society, Mr Michael Fingleton, until some time later this year or even into next year, according to legal sources.

No date has yet been set for the trial hearing of the case which led to the dramatic order for the imprisonment of Mr Fingleton. Sources said the case was not likely to be heard until some time in the next legal term, which begins in October, or the following term, which begins in January 2000.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly in the High Court on Tuesday made an order for the imprisonment of Mr Fingleton and the sequestration of the society's assets but then put a stay on the order until the trial of the action between Irish Nation wide and Mr Sean Martin, of The Commons, Belturbet, Co Cavan.

The stay was put on the order when counsel for the society gave an unequivocal undertaking about Mr Martin's continued employment as manager of the society's branch in Cavan. An order for the imprisonment of another building society employee was also made, and again a stay put upon it.

Mr Martin had sought the imprisonment of Mr Fingleton and the other employee, and the sequestration of the society's assets for contempt of court over orders previously made by Ms Justice Macken. He claimed that, in contempt of Ms Justice Macken's order, the society had proceeded to dismiss him.

Mr Fingleton was not available for comment yesterday. In a statement, the society said it had "acted on legal advice at all stages" and that it "accepts the verdict of the court and will comply with all the necessary procedures required to resolve this matter".

Sources said the sequestration of a company's assets was an option outlined in the Superior Court rules in the event of an executive being found to be in contempt of court. Sequestration would involve the assets of the society coming under the jurisdiction of the courts. Sources said that in such an instance the society's business would continue to operate but the courts would be in a position to protect Mr Martin.

On March 8th, Ms Justice Macken ruled that Mr Martin remain as branch manager until the trial of the action. However, on June 18th, on grounds that he had carried on alternative employment as an auctioneer and on alleged grounds of under-achieving as a manager, the society issued a letter of dismissal to Mr Martin.

The society had earlier carried out disciplinary proceedings and said it had received little or no co-operation from Mr Martin. Mr Justice Kelly said Mr Martin was the beneficiary of a court order and was entitled to the comforts of that until it had been discharged by the courts. The society had been enjoined from doing precisely what it had done on June 18th with the knowledge of legal advisers.

It was inconceivable, Mr Justice Kelly said, how anybody could have been in the slightest doubt as to the effect of Ms Justice Macken's order. The society had taken the law into its own hands and proceeded with the dismissal.