The Commercial Court will deal next month with an application by the Quinn family for orders striking out, due to alleged failure to make proper discovery of documents, IBRC's defence to the family's case denying liability for €2.34 billion loans.
IBRC denies it has failed to make proper discovery but the Quinns contend that, of a potential two million recorded phone calls to Anglo Irish Bank in the period relevant to their case, IBRC appears to have reviewed a maximum 18,000 of those.
In an affidavit, Aoife Quinn said there was nothing to suggest that persons in Anglo who did not have their phone lines habitually recorded were still not the subject, on a regular basis, of recording when they contacted colleagues in departments where recording was practised. The family were concerned IBRC had merely scratched the surface of audio discovery and did not accept arguments by IBRC there was no mechanism for searching the content of the audio recordings.
The family’s application will be heard next month, Mr Justice Brian McGovern ruled.
The judge also yesterday adjourned to January next a series of pre-trial applications in the family’s separate action against the Central Bank, Minister for Finance and 10 former board members of Anglo Irish Bank for multimillion euro damages over an alleged conspiracy to unlawfully shore up the share price of Anglo.
The adjournment was sought by the defendants to allow time for the Supreme Court to hear and decide an appeal by IBRC against a High Court order permitting the family, in its separate case against State-owned IBRC, Anglo’s successor in title, to pursue their claims that €2.34 billion loans were unlawfully loaned by Anglo to prop up its share price.
The family claim the defendants were aware and approved of the making of some €2.34 billion illegal loans to Quinn companies between September 2007 and July 2008 to fund margin calls on Contract for Difference positions in Anglo shares, causing substantial damage to the Quinns’ shareholdings in those companies.
Damages are claimed for alleged conspiracy, negligence, breach of duty, breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office and negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation.
