Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses judicial review in challenge to the conduct of an assessor appointed to determine the amount of compensation payable to former shareholders in a bank whose shares were transferred to the Minister for Finance, on the grounds that the shareholder did not establish that information sought by him was necessary in order to allow him to make a meaningful submission, and failed to make out a case for objective bias or premature judgment on the part of the assessor.
Company law – judicial review - challenge concerning the conduct of an assessor – shareholder in an Irish bank – shares in the bank transferred to the Minister for Finance - Minister appointed an Assessor to determine the amount of compensation (if any) payable to former shareholders in respect of the transferred shares and the associated rights extinguished by such transfer – Regulations governing the acts of the assessor – relevant legislation - required the Assessor to come to provisional conclusions about the level of compensation to be paid to former shareholders – correspondence leading to the challenge – large amount of information sought – requests for information refused - – whether all of the information sought by the shareholder is material which is necessary to allow him to make a meaningful submission to the assessor – expert evidence – tone of affidavit – shareholder has not discharged the burden which he carries to establish that his witnesses have the experience, training or knowledge to act as an expert witness with regard to the valuation of the shareholding in the Bank - no evidence before the Court to establish that the information sought by the shareholder is necessary in order to allow him to make a meaningful submission to the Assessor – not unreasonable to refuse information request – not disproportionate to refuse information request – decision to refuse an extension of time was not unreasonable - prejudgment – open to the assessor to reach a conclusion at the time of his interim report as to the solvency position of the bank – one of the factors considered – all other matters taken into consideration – no objective bias – premature judgment - judicial review refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.