Judgment Title: In re Bovale Developments DCE v Bailey & anor Neutral Citation: [2011] IESC 24 Supreme Court Record Number: 25 & 26/08 High Court Record Number: 2006 282 COS Date of Delivery: 14/07/2011 Court: Supreme Court Composition of Court: Denham J., Hardiman J., Fennelly J., Macken J., Finnegan J. Judgment by: Denham J. Status of Judgment: Approved
Outcome: Dismiss | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE SUPREME COURT [Appeal No: 25 & 26 of 2008] Denham J. Hardiman J. Fennelly J. Macken J. Finnegan J. IN THE MATTER OF BOVALE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACTS 1963 TO 2006 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO S.160(2) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1990 BETWEEN/ THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE ENFORCEMENT APPLICANT/RESPONDENT AND MICHAEL BAILEY AND THOMAS BAILEY
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Judgment delivered on the 14th day of July, 2011 by Denham J. 1. The Director of Corporate Enforcement, the applicant/respondent in this appeal, who is referred to as "the Director", brought a notice of motion dated the 8th August, 2006, seeking a disqualification order pursuant to s.160(2)(a) and/or s.160(2)(b) and/or s.160(2)(d) of the Companies Act, 1990, (as amended by s.14 and s.42 of the Company Law Enforcement Act, 2001) against Michael Bailey and Thomas Bailey, the respondents/appellants, referred to as "the appellants", on grounds set forth in affidavits deposed by Peter Lacy, a partner in PricewaterhouseCoopers, "PwC", and Dermot Madden, an accountant and officer of the Director, sworn on the 30th June, 2006 and the 8th August, 2006, respectively. 2. The appellants brought a notice of motion dated the 22nd November, 2006, seeking an order striking out paragraphs 9 to 10, 17, 27 to 28 and 32 of the said affidavit of Mr. Madden and paragraph 8 of the said affidavit of Mr. Lacy. 3. The motions were heard by the High Court and on the 1st November, 2007 Irvine J. delivered judgment. By order of 18th December, 2007, the High Court ordered that paragraphs 9, 10, 13, 17, 27 and 28 of the said affidavit of Mr. Madden be removed; that portion of paragraph 32 of the said affidavit of Mr. Madden be removed; and that paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the said affidavit of Mr. Lacy be removed. 4. The appellants appealed the order of the High Court, filing eight specific grounds of appeal, being:-
(ii) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in finding that the Director lawfully delegated his functions under the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001 to PwC. (iii) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in finding that the investigation by PwC of suspected offences under the Companies Acts did not involve the exercise by it of the powers of the Director. (iv) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in finding that an instrument of delegation of the powers of the Director to PwC was not required. (v) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in finding that PwC was an officer of the Director within the meaning of section 12(6) of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001. (vi) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in finding that PwC was a person within the meaning of section 3(1)(c) of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001. (vii) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in finding that it was lawful for persons other than the partners of PwC to have participated in the preparation of the reports. (viii) The learned trial judge erred in law and/or in fact in that she misconstrued the provisions of sections 12 and 13 of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001.
(ii) The admissibility of evidence could be challenged before the appellants disqualification proceedings had put in any replying affidavits. (iii) The Director could place no reliance on hearsay evidence in its grounding affidavits in disqualification proceedings. (iv) The report of a tribunal has no evidential value in disqualification proceedings but can merely be used as a source to assist in the finding of other evidence. (v) The Director could place no reliance on the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners in its grounding affidavits in disqualification proceedings. (vi) The Director could place no reliance on the hand-written memos by the auditor of the company in its grounding affidavits in disqualification proceedings.
(ii) The Director will no longer seek to rely upon paragraphs 17-21 and 17-22 in the Second Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry Into Certain Planning Matters and Payments as referred to in paragraph 27 of Mr. Madden's affidavit dated the 8th August, 2006. (iii) The Director will no longer seek to rely upon paragraphs 8.04 of the Third Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments as referred to in paragraph 28 of Mr. Madden's affidavit dated the 8th August 2006. (iv) The Director considers that the material at paragraph 18.09 of the Second Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments as referred to in paragraph 27 of Mr. Madden's affidavit dated the 8th August, 2006 are relevant to the Court's determination on the fitness of the appellants to be concerned in the management of a company and will seek to submit to the Supreme Court that such material should be admitted as prima facie evidence in the section 160 proceedings. (v) The Director considers that the material at paragraph 7.08 and 7.09 of the Third Interim Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments as referred to in paragraph 28 of Mr. Madden's affidavit dated the 8th August, 2006 are relevant to the Court's determination on the fitness of the appellants to be concerned in the management of a company and will seek to submit to the Supreme Court that such material should likewise be admissible on a prima facie basis. 7. There are thus two appeals before the Court: the appeal by the appellants and the cross appeal by the Director. The appellants' appeal is against that part of the High Court's decision which rejected the submission that the Director impermissibly delegated his functions under the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001 to PwC. This will be referred to as the PwC issue. The Director has cross appealed the decision of the High Court which directed that portions of the affidavits relied upon by the Director be struck out on the basis that they contain inadmissible evidence, which substantially relates to the report of the Tribunal, and will be referred to as the Tribunal issue. The PwC Issue 9. The High Court rejected all of the appellants' arguments regarding the lawfulness of the Director's actions in relation to PwC and s.12 of the Company Law Enforcement Act, 2001. The High Court was of the opinion that PwC was, at all times, acting as a lawfully appointed officer of the Director for the purposes of assisting him in carrying out his functions. 10. The Company Law Enforcement Act, 2001, will be referred to as "the Act of 2001". Section 12(6) of the Act of 2001 provides:-
(a) an officer of the Minister assigned to the Director, (b) a member of An Garda Síochána seconded to the Director, or (c) a person employed by the Minister or the Director under a contract for service or otherwise, to assist the Director in carrying out functions of the Director under the Companies Acts or any other Act;" 13. Section 13 of the Act of 2001, provides that:-
(2) A power delegated under subsection (1) shall not be exercised by the delegate except in accordance with the instrument of delegation. (3) A delegate shall, on request by a person affected by the exercise of a power delegated to him or her, produce the instrument of delegation under this section, or a copy of the instrument, for inspection. (4) A delegation under this section is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise by the Director of a power so delegated." Counsel submitted that, if anything, a delegation of power requires a greater degree of formality. In this case, he submitted, there should have been an instrument in writing and a delegation by the Director pursuant to s.13 of the Act of 2001. He further argued that PwC's activities were more like the exercise of a power than the giving of advice such as a solicitor might give, for example. Decision on the PwC Issue
(ii) the recorded payments of remuneration to the [appellants] were supplemented in the main by a series of additional cheque payments which were not properly recorded in [Bovale's] Cheque Payments Book or payroll records. Many of these cheques, when returned from [Bovale's] bank, showed that they were made out to cash or to financial institutions and that they were signed by one or other of the [appellants]. It was subsequently necessary during the course of the company audit to re-classify these payments made to the [appellants] or on their behalf."
17. In general, an unincorporated body, such as a partnership, may be regarded as a "person". PwC is an unincorporated body: a partnership. 18. Section 18 of the Interpretation Act, 2005, referred to as "the Act of 2005" states that "The following provisions apply to the construction of an enactment …" and section 18(c) provides:-
19. Counsel for the appellants made submissions that the work had been done by a team in PwC and that the team in PwC could not be regarded as "a person". I do not agree with this submission. The fact that PwC established a team, led by Mr. Lacy, to undertake the contract, does not undermine the applicability of the term to the situation. PwC was the responsible person, and, within PWC, Mr. Lacy was the leader of the team and had responsibility. The fact that some members of the team may not have been partners of PwC does not invalidate its standing. PwC was accountable for the contract, and, within PWC, Mr. Lacy was accountable. The fact that some work may have been done by non-partners does not invalidate the situation. 20. In a specific submission on statutory interpretation, counsel for the appellants referred to s.3 of the Act of 2001 where "officer of the Director" is defined. The precise terms of the section are set out earlier in this judgment. Counsel submitted that paragraph (a) referred to "an officer" of the Minister; paragraph (b) referred to "a member of An Garda Síochána"; and paragraph (c) referred to "a person" employed by the Director, and, that this properly construed referred to an individual person only. I am satisfied that this is incorrect. While both paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to specific individual persons the term in paragraph (c) is to "a person". This term is universally recognised, as in the Act of 2005, to include both an incorporated company and an unincorporated body. I would draw no inferences from paragraphs (a) and (b) so as to limit the general meaning of the term "a person", in the absence of any express deviation from the general and usual meaning. Thus "a person" under the definition of "officer of the Director" in s.3 of the Act of 2001 may include an unincorporated body, such as PwC. 21. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the proper course to have taken was for the Director to have delegated the matter pursuant to s.13 of the Act of 2001. This was a route open to the Director, and, if taken, this choice would have required a formal instrument in writing. However, in this case such a document does not exist. Clearly evidence of a delegation in writing would be very relevant in certain types of inquiries. However, it is obvious from the papers that the Director and PwC both regarded the exercise as being undertaken pursuant to s.12(6) of the Act of 2001. 22. I am satisfied that it was open to the Director to use s.12(6) of the Act of 2001 as he did in this case. "Functions" in the Act of 2001 is defined very broadly, it includes both powers and duties. Thus it includes the task undertaken by PwC in this case. The Director did not impermissibly delegate his functions under the Act of 2001 to PwC. PwC was an officer of the Director, a person employed by the Director to assist him in carrying out functions. After receipt of the reports of PWC, it was for the Director to decide how to proceed with the matter. 23. For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal of the appellants on this issue. The Tribunal Issue
(b) two memoranda of the auditor; and (c) information from the Revenue Commissioners. 25. The Director wishes to put in evidence, pursuant to the affidavit of Mr. Madden, deposed on the 8th August, 2006, two extracts from the Tribunal report. 26. The first extract is from the second interim report, paragraph 18-09. It states:-
7-09 The Tribunal is satisfied that these payments were made to Mr. George Redmond in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference that such payments were made in order to influence him in the performance of his duties as an Assistant City and County Manager for Dublin and that they amounted to corrupt payments." 29. Counsel for the Director submitted that the above cited paragraphs from the reports of the Tribunal are relevant to the issue of the fitness of the appellants and should be admitted in evidence. Goodman Case
32. In relation to Article 34 of the Constitution, the applicants in Goodman had submitted that in so far as the resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas directed an inquiry into matters that were or could be the subject matter of civil litigation between the applicants and other parties, it was in breach of Article 34 of the Constitution in purporting to direct the administration of justice otherwise than by courts established by law, and by judges appointed in the manner provided by the Constitution. Secondly, it was submitted that, in so far as the matters to be inquired into by the resolution involved the determination of the truth or falsity of questions that were or could be the subject of civil litigation in the courts, the resolution was in breach of Article 34 in that it was directing a process that would inevitably usurp the functions of the courts established under the Constitution. 33. In the decision on the Article 34 aspect of the case, Finlay C.J. pointed out that the meaning of the constitutional concept of the administration of justice involved in Article 34 was identified in the tests set out in the judgment of Kenny J. in the High Court in McDonald v. Bord na gCon [1965] I.R. 217, which were later adopted by Walsh J. in the Supreme Court. Kenny J. stated that the administration of justice had five characteristics, being: (i) a dispute or controversy as to the existence of legal rights or a violation of the law; (ii) the determination or ascertainment of the rights of parties or the imposition of liabilities or the infliction of a penalty; (iii) the final determination (subject to appeal) of legal rights and liabilities or the imposition of penalties; (iv) the enforcement of those rights or liabilities or the imposition of a penalty by the Court or by the executive power of the State, which is called in by the Court to enforce its judgment; and (v) the making of an order by the Court which as a matter of history is an order characteristic of courts in this country. 34. Finlay C.J. held in Goodman at p.589:-
36. This has been understood to be the jurisprudence arising from that case for many years and has been applied by the courts and in the tribunals. 37. The courts have used the term "sterile of legal effect" since that judgment. This comes from the judgment of Costello J. in Goodman. As stated by Hardiman J. in Murphy & Ors v. Mr. Justice Flood & Ors [2010] IESC 21:-
39. Counsel for the Director asked the court, in the alternative to distinguishing the decision of Finlay C.J., to overrule that judgment. However, this submission was not pressed. Indeed, counsel did not open any of the case law on the rule of stare decisis to the Court. No submissions were made as to the applicability of the decided case law to this appeal. In all the circumstances of the case, I would not consider departing from the decision in Goodman as expressed by Finlay C.J.. It has been part of the law on tribunals for nearly twenty years, it has been relied upon during that time by parties before tribunals, and has been viewed as the law by tribunals and by the courts. 40. For the reasons given, the judgment of Finlay C.J. in Goodman is well settled law in this jurisdiction on the stature of a tribunal report and should be applied in this case. I would apply the Goodman decision to the appeal in this case, and, on this issue, I would dismiss the appeal. As a consequence of this decision, the paragraphs referred to in the second and third interim reports of the Tribunal may not be received in evidence, prima facie or otherwise, in the High Court. 41. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the second ground, that of hearsay, in relation to the reports, as the reports may not be admitted in evidence under the law as stated in Goodman. Hearsay 43. As set out in the written submissions on behalf of the Director, it was submitted that the learned trial judge erred in not applying the practical good sense of the line of English authority to the effect that it would be absurd to expect the Secretary of State to construct a case for the disqualification of directors based exclusively on evidence within his personal knowledge and in addition there are sound reasons of procedure and economy that justified the Secretary of State's reliance on hearsay evidence. The facts of the present case are a perfect example of the need for this practicality, it was submitted that information came to the Director from a variety of sources and when placed all together would entitle any rational decision-maker to institute disqualification proceedings. Instead of permitting those proceedings to proceed to a hearing, the appellants have been permitted to fillet the grounding affidavits of the Director, in circumstances where they have not indicated which, if any, of the underlying facts they are disputing. It was submitted that such an approach amounts to an ultra-formalistic application of the rule against hearsay which places it above the practical realities of the situation. 44. English authorities were referred to which stated that hearsay evidence is admissible at this stage in disqualification proceedings. It was submitted that these were persuasive authority for this Court. Reference was made to In Re Williams Leisure Plc [1994] Ch 1, where Nicholls V.C. held that there were sound reasons of procedure and economy that justified the Secretary of State's reliance on hearsay evidence. This was followed by Secretary of State v. Ashcroft [1998] Ch 71, where Millett L.J. stated that it would be nonsensical if the court could not take, at least, hearsay evidence into account unless and until it was challenged by direct evidence to the contrary. In Re Barings plc & Ors (in administration) (No.2), [1998] 1 CLC 590 in the Chancery Division (Companies Court) Evans-Lombe J. reviewed the cases and appears to have expanded this exception to the hearsay rule. He considered that he had to accept that the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence sought to be adduced by the Secretary of State in support of an application under the Act. He held that at the stage when the application is presented to court, the Secretary of State is entitled to rely on all the evidence, including hearsay evidence, which was taken into account in coming to the decision to proceed. However, a cautionary note was struck in Secretary of State v. Aaron by the Court of Appeal [2008] EWCA 1146, where Thomas L.J. stated:-
… It may be that in a diverse regulatory system within the UK and in a globalised financial and banking services industry, it is necessary to rely on investigative reports carried out by other regulators or under statutory authority in other states and that by analogy, such material can be relied on in disqualification proceedings. That was the effect of the decision in Barings and, although the point does not arise on the present appeal, I accept that an argument can be made along those lines and the merits of the argument can be decided when it arises, unless Parliament takes the preferable course of amending the 1986 Act." Information from the Revenue Commissioners Two Memoranda of the Auditor Prematurity Issue 49. It was submitted that if the High Court was correct, then the scenario will arise whereby every trial of a disqualification case could potentially be split into several parts. First, there would be a trial based solely on questions of admissibility in circumstances where there were no agreed facts and no defence; and secondly, there might be an appeal to this Court from whatever rulings on admissibility were made in respect of the grounding affidavits. Only after the disposal of these issues would the respondent put in his defence and there would be a trial on the merits. It was submitted that this would not be conducive to the proper or effective litigation of issues. 50. Indeed it was submitted that the position is even more complicated as the right to challenge hearsay is not limited. Every time an affidavit is served there is the possibility of a High Court hearing and a Supreme Court appeal on admissibility. This pushes the possibility of a substantive hearing of the application by the Director further and further into the distance. 51. In this case, the issue of the stature of Goodman and its application to the several paragraphs of the Tribunal reports, which the Director wished to be admitted into evidence, was raised. It is a matter of law and there are no disputed facts. While it could have been determined in the run of the High Court hearing, there is merit in having it determined as a preliminary issue. 52. The other matters raised, i.e. the issue of U.K. law, and the hearsay rule, are now rendered moot as the case has been ordered, by the High Court, to plenary hearing in the High Court. 53. This is an area of litigation where careful case management by the learned trial judge is appropriate. It is important that cases proceed in a fair and efficient manner and within a reasonable time. It is also important that applications are not brought so that proceedings are delayed, with cases spending many years in the courts. Conclusion Significance of Goodman.
In Goodman, the former Chief Justice said at p.590:
What the Director wishes to do. This, it will be observed, is a considerable restriction of the scope of the Director of Corporate Enforcements contentions and clearly represents a significant rethinking of the Director’s position. But that position is still an extremely novel and far reaching one. At least absent a specific statutory provision, a matter of fact requiring to be established before a court must be established by admissible evidence which is open to cross-examination and contradiction, and is given publicly before the Court. It is not normally an admissible form of proof to produce a statement by a third party whether a policeman, a government minister or a Tribunal of Inquiry and to claim that that has evidential effect, prima facie or otherwise. An exception to this arises, of course, where there is an issue which, by virtue of a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, is res judicata between the parties; but such a decision of a court will itself have been reached on admissible evidence duly adduced in a hearing which observes all the parties’ procedural rights. Powers of a Tribunal of Inquiry. Legal issues affecting Tribunals. The learned editors of Kelly on the Irish Constitution (4th edition, Dublin 2003) at p.1040 say:
The core of the challenged passage.
Legal nature of a tribunal.
- its conclusions merely have the status of opinion and “this opinion is devoid of legal consequences” (p.557), - a body whose findings are “sterile of legal effect” 562 and - whose purpose is “merely to enquire and report” (ibid).
I repeat that the passage from the judgment of Finlay C.J. to which exception is taken is in my view entirely unexceptionable. So far from going further than is necessary, so as to be a mere obiter, the entire of the passage is, as I have said, the inescapable corollary of the findings that a tribunal operates “in vacuo” that it is “sterile of legal effect” and that its report is simply an opinion and is “devoid of legal consequences”. If the report could be used, on a prima facie basis or otherwise, as a weapon or a shield in the hands of a litigant it would manifestly not be “devoid of legal consequences” or “sterile of legal effect”. Whether a body which is so “sterile” is worth having in the first place is a question for the judgement of those who establish tribunals, and not for the Court. But once established it is established with those qualities, and not otherwise. It is worthy of note that the Attorney General did not support the contention of the Director of Corporate Enforcement but supported, as I understood it, the “sterility” of the Tribunal’s findings. Though the findings in this case were adverse to the Baileys, the report of any particular tribunal might be adverse to any party at all, or even to the State itself. In such circumstances the State would be entitled to take the point now taken by the Baileys, and to the same extent, neither greater nor less. Ex post facto In those circumstances it is simply not open, in my view, to the State or any emanation of the State to execute a complete change of front and declare that now, so far from being “devoid of legal consequence” or “sterile of legal effect” the findings of the Tribunal are prima facie evidence against them in the present disqualification proceedings in which serious allegations are made against them. It is not open to a party, and particularly a party in a dominant position such as the State, to “approbate and reprobate”, as the old phrase, originating in a different context, has it. I take this to mean, in more contemporary language, the State cannot bring about or permit a particular state of the law and then, without notice, to take up an entirely different posture and to seek to deprive a person of property or other advantage acquired under that state of the law by declaring that it never existed at all, or was it wrong, or mistaken, or by changing it in a manner inimical to a course of conduct lawfully and prudently followed under the law as it stood. This is certainly the case in relation to property rights. In Cox v. Ireland [1992] 2 IR 503, the plaintiff challenged the provision of an act of 1939 whereby, as a public servant, he could on conviction of a scheduled offence in the Special Criminal Court forfeit his employment, be disqualified from the like employment for seven years and be disqualified from being granted out of the central fund any pension, superannuation or allowance in respect of service rendered by him before the date of such conviction. In finding the Section unconstitutional, this Court held that:
The hearsay issue. The point is well taken by Denham J. that the material in the English cases was all material arising out of statutory proceedings and fitting into a statutory scheme. In Secretary of State v. Aaron [2008] EWCA 1146, Thomas L.J. stated, having referred to earlier authority:
In my view, in Ireland with its distinctive legal system and in particular the distinctive structure of rights arising out of the constitution, the position is still clearer. I wish to make it clear that in my view the fundamental objection to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in proceedings before a court is that, to the extent that it is admitted it deprives the applicant of his right to cross-examine. This case, like many of these applications, features allegations of a kind which, if they could be stood up in evidence, would amount to conduct disgraceful in a businessman and company director and would be gravely damaging to his reputation and his ability to earn a livelihood. Persons, official or otherwise, who makes such allegations must be prepared to stand them up in direct evidence. The person against whom they are made, if he contests them as the Baileys clearly do, is entitled to the rights identified in Re Haughey [1971] IR 217 including, vitally a right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. This is not a technicality but the exercise of a right which, as I have observed elsewhere, has been the means of the vindication of innocent people. The Director argued that he must, even in the case of a contested case, first make some showing in affidavits; that he cannot compel any person, such for example the auditors or the revenue staff to swear an affidavit; and therefore he should be able to rely on these reports at least at an early stage. He did not say that any particular person had, in fact, refused to swear an affidavit. Certainly it is true that people against whom disgraceful allegations of the sort the Director is making here are entitled to notice of the nature of the allegations and the evidence which is said to support them. But, on the basis of Re Haughey, they are entitled to have these allegations made viva voce and to cross-examine those who make them. Paper does not refuse ink; and for that reason it would be disgraceful in the Director to put on affidavit, on the basis of hearsay, an allegation which he lacks a witness to stand up, and I am sure he would not do so. But the nature of the evidence can be notified without putting it on affidavit on the basis of hearsay and it is wrong that evidence which may be wholly exploded in cross-examination should go on to enjoy a malign half life in hearsay affidavit form. There is in my view no reality in the Director’s repeated suggestions that he would be in some way at a disadvantage if he could not put these allegations on affidavit: he would not and he can easily notify the persons against whom he is making accusations of the nature and substance of them in all necessary detail even though he cannot force such persons to make an affidavit. I am of the opinion that, in the absence of the Haughey rights, a person, a company director or not, simply cannot be put to answer. His right to have only admissible evidence deployed against him does not depend on what answer he makes to an ex parte statement of the case against him, made on the basis of hearsay. Procedural issues. I wish to say that, in the most unusual circumstances of this case, I do not share these concerns. It is notable that the evidence which is the subject of the present appeal was clearly and manifestly inadmissible evidence. Portions of it were rank hearsay, other portions consisted of an attempt to deploy in litigation, as a weapon of offence, portions of the findings of a Tribunal of Inquiry. This is legally impossible by reason of a decision of this Court of the highest authority. In those circumstances, I would be extremely sorry to think that a person against whom this inadmissible evidence was sought to be deployed could do nothing about it until the trial of the action. If this were so, I believe it would confer a wholly unmerited tactical advantage on the party deploying evidence which he knows to be inadmissible. Firstly, the evidence would be on the record of the Court publicly available. Secondly, the person against whom it was deployed would have no certainty until the trial as to how the issue of its admissibility would be resolved. From this it follows that he would have to make his tactical and evidential preparations for the trial on the basis that the evidence to which he objected might nonetheless be admitted. This in turn might easily (and in the present case in my view would probably) involve him in answering material not properly deployed against him and perhaps in committing himself on matters which do not properly arise at all. It would add to the length and therefore to the expense of the hearing. I entirely agree with the finding of the learned trial judge that:
I consider it would be a considerable injustice to the respondents in the underlying action if there were no machinery for the excision of material which is clearly hearsay or otherwise clearly inadmissible, and I find sufficient warrant for the relief that this Court can entertain such an application in Order 40, Rule 4. I too would dismiss the appeal and the cross-appeal.
6. The appellants served notice of appeal on 31st January 2008 against those parts of the High Court order where they had not succeeded. The Director served notice of cross appeal on 1st February 2008. The appeal was heard by this Court on 7th June 2011. The matter will now return to the High Court for hearing more than five years after the date of issue of the Director’s notice of motion. 7. There has to be real doubt as to the efficacy of the use of the interlocutory procedures which were deployed in this case. Even if the time analysis were to be confined to the High Court, a period of about sixteen months elapsed between the issue of the notice of motion and the determination, after a four day hearing, of the preliminary issues. The plenary hearing directed by the High Court has been abeyance pending the resolution of this appeal. 8. There has, in reality, been very little discussion in the High Court or in this Court of the jurisdiction invoked to justify the procedures followed. The following remarks must, for reasons which will appear, be regarded as largely obiter. 9. Order 40, rule 12 of the Rules is the first rule invoked by the appellants. It provides:
11. It is worth noting that the Irish rule or its antecedents was always confined to “scandalous” matter. The corresponding English rule included “any matter which is scandalous, irrelevant or oppressive.” (see Supreme Court Practice—the White Book- 1979, Order 41 rule 6). The authors of Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts (Hilary Delany and Declan McGrath, Thomson Round Hall Dublin 2005 at 18-61, p. 499), in considering Order 40, rule 12, state:
14. In fact and in reality, Irvine J did not make her order under either of those rules. It is clear from her judgment that she made it under Order 40, rule 4. That rule provides:
16. None of these matters were raised in the High Court. Nor are they raised on the appeal. The Director’s argument in the High Court was that the appellants’ motion was premature. The learned trial judge gave full and very careful consideration to this issue. She expressed the view that, at the stage when he issued his motion, the Director must have expected to proceed in reliance on the affidavits then filed. She correctly ruled the Director’s application was not interlocutory and I do not think the Director has contended otherwise. Referring to the special rules of court governing applications of this kind, she said that nothing new should emerge after the filing of the original affidavits and they had to comply with the rule against hearsay: “It is clear that the evidence supporting any alleged wrongdoing at a hearing which is dealt with on affidavit must be just as admissible as evidence which would be given to a court by a witness at an oral hearing.” There can be no question but that the learned judge was correct in this statement of the law. 17. It does not inexorably follow from the fact that the evidence upon which the Director may rely at the hearing, whether on affidavit or otherwise, must be admissible that the court has power by way of preliminary application to excise parts of an affidavit. 18. The learned judge explained in detail her reasons for rejecting the Director’s submission that the application was premature. In substance, it appears to me that she was deciding a preliminary point or several preliminary points of law. Order 25, rules 1 and 2 are the relevant rules. The learned judge was “convinced that the appropriate time for a party to object to the admissibility of evidence in an affidavit supporting proceedings brought by way of originating notice of motion is the time at which the affidavit is delivered.” 19. The learned judge gave her reasons under seven headings. In effect, these come down to identifying tactical or substantive disadvantages for the respondents (the appellants on this appeal) if decisions on the admissibility are to be postponed to the hearing of the application of the Director. 20. A brief summary of the reasons is as follows. A respondent would have to decide whether to counter assertions in affidavits even when he thought them inadmissible. If he decided not to, he might be treated as having accepted the evidence. In any event, the objection might fail at trial. They would then have a problem in making a late application to reply. If the respondent decided to reply, he might be later cross-examined on affidavits he should not have had to swear (if the Director’s evidence was held inadmissible). The costs to the parties would be increased if replying affidavits were sworn in respect of matters later ruled inadmissible. 21. It is not appropriate to consider the strength and merits of these and other points in detail. The matter has not been fully argued on the appeal. In particular, there has been virtually no argument about the nature of the jurisdiction which was exercised by the learned judge. It seems doubtful whether, on the facts of this case, there was any power to strike out parts of affidavits under either Order 40, rule 12 or Order 19, rule 27. Order 40, rule 4, which formed the principal basis of the decision, contains no provision for the striking out of parts of affidavits, but that was what the High Court ordered. Order 25 may need to be considered. It is also clear that account must be taken of the fact that the existence of an independent right of appeal following an order on a motion such as in the present case has, in itself, the capacity to delay proceedings. 22. The Director makes the point that the procedures used have permitted the appellants selectively to challenge parts of the affidavits without giving any indication of the issues they dispute. He expresses concern that these procedures may give rise, in every disqualification case, to split trials, with a first trial based purely on issues of admissibility. In my view, these are real and legitimate concerns. 23. In an appropriate case, consideration will need to be given to the precise basis of the jurisdiction to be exercised and to the most efficient and expeditious way of disposing of disputed issues of admissibility. |