British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Dowling & ors v Minister for Finance [2013] IESC 58 (19 December 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2013/S58.html
Cite as: [2013] 12 JIC 1902, [2013] IESC 58
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Dowling & ors v Minister for Finance Neutral Citation: [2013] IESC 58 Supreme Court Record Number: 125/13 High Court Record Number: 2011 239 MCA (1) Date of Delivery: 19/12/2013 Court: Supreme Court Composition of Court: Fennelly J., Clarke J., MacMenamin J. Judgment by: Fennelly J. Status of Judgment: Approved
Outcome: Allow And Set Aside | ||||||||||||||||
December THE SUPREME COURT [Appeal No. 125/2013] Fennelly J.Clarke J. MacMenamin J. IN THE MATTER OF IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT GROUP HOLDINGS PLC AND IN THE MATTER OF IRISH LIFE & PERMANENT PLC AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 11 OF THE CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (STABILISATION) ACT, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE SETTING ASIDE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF THE CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (STABILISATION) ACT, 2010, THE DIRECTION ORDER WHICH WAS MADE ON THE 26TH JULY, 2011 PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (STABILISATION) ACT, 2010 AND ANCILLARY ORDERS BETWEEN: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, Piotr Skoczylas and Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd. Applicants / Respondents AND The Minister for Finance Respondent AND Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc and Permanent TSB plc Limited Notice Parties / Appellants JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered the 19th day of December, 2013. 1. This appeal concerns a motion brought in the High Court to add parties to a special proceeding in that Court whose object is the setting aside of a direction order whereby the Minister for Finance proposed the capitalisation of the first-named appellant allegedly to the disadvantage of existing shareholders. The Direction Order was made on 26th July 2011 by the High Court (McGovern J.) on the application of the Minister. The trial in the High Court is due to take place on 14th January 2014. 2. The context of the appeal calls for the exercise of caution. It is important to exercise restraint in expressing even tentative views about matters of law or fact which will fall to be decided by the High Court judge who will hear the case. Some of the points most strenuously argued as grounds for or against the admittance of the appellants to full participation in the main proceedings are or are closely related to matters to be decided in those proceedings themselves. It is, nonetheless, necessary to describe the essential background. 3. First, I will identify the parties. The appellants are Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc (formerly Irish Life and Permanent Group Holdings plc) (hereinafter “the Company”) and Permanent TSB plc (formerly Irish Life and Permanent plc) (hereinafter “the Bank”). The Company was established in 2009 to become the parent of the Bank. Shareholders in the Bank became shareholders in the Company instead. The Bank is thus a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. The respondents are shareholders in the Company. The third-named the respondent (hereinafter “Mr. Skoczylas”) argued the case ably on their behalf at the hearing of the appeal. The Minister for Finance who applied to the High Court for the Direction Order is also a Respondent. He supports the appeal of the appellants. 4. The appeal is taken against the judgment and order of Charleton J dated the 21st February 2013 insofar as that order permitted the appellants to participate on a limited basis only in the proceedings. The appellants submit that that they should be joined fully as notice parties to the proceedings which challenge the Direction Order 5. First, it is necessary to describe the legislation which gave rise to the making of the direction order and to the High Court proceedings. It is the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010. The Act is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It does not pretend to be otherwise. It claims to address an extraordinary situation. Its long title proclaims that it is intended to make provision, in the context of the National Recovery Plan 2011 - 2014 and the European Union/International Monetary Fund Programme of Financial Support for Ireland, in relation to the stabilisation, and the preservation or restoration of the financial position of certain credit institutions. It recites serious disturbance in the economy of the State and says that measures are necessary to address a unique and unprecedented economic crisis which has led to difficult economic circumstances and severe disruption to the economy. 6. More particularly, the long title says that there is a continuing serious threat to the stability of certain credit institutions in the state, and to the financial system generally. To that end, it states that it is necessary, in the public interest, to maintain the stability of those credit institutions and the financial system in the state and explains that “the functions and powers conferred by this act are necessary to secure financial stability and to effect a reorganisation of certain credit institutions.” 7. Section 7(1) of the Act confers on the Minister for Finance (hereinafter “the Minister”) the power to “make a proposed direction order proposing that a relevant institution be directed to take (within a specified period) or refrain from taking (during a specified period) any action……” (emphasis added). That action may include “notwithstanding any statutory or contractual pre-emption rights, the listing rules of a regulated market or the rules of any other market on which the shares of the relevant institution may be traded from time to time, issuing shares to the Minister or to another person nominated by the Minister on terms and conditions that the Minister specifies in the proposed direction order at a consideration that the Minister sets……” (emphasis added). It is not in dispute that the Bank is a “relevant institution,” as defined in s. 2(1), for the purposes of the Act. 8. A proposed direction order becomes a direction order, in accordance with s. 9 of the Act. Section 9(1) provides:
9. It will be noted that the order, which is effectively a final order, is made ex parte. However, section 7 contains provisions for the giving by the Minister of prior notice to the relevant institution of the terms of the proposed direction order, a time for the making of written submissions and consideration of those submissions by the Minister. 10. Section 11 of the Act provides for the making of an application to the High Court to set aside a direction order. That section provides:
(2) The Court shall give such priority to an application under subsection (1) as is necessary in the circumstances and may give such directions with regard to the hearing of the application as it considers appropriate in the circumstances. (3) On an application under subsection (1), the Court shall set aside the direction order only if it is of the opinion that there has been non-compliance with any of the requirements of section 7 or that the opinion of the Minister under section 7 (2) was unreasonable or vitiated by an error of law. (4) The Court may, instead of setting aside the direction order, make an order varying or amending that order in the manner it considers appropriate if the Court is satisfied that—
(b) it would be appropriate to do so, having regard to any report referred to in section 9 (4), and (c) to do so is necessary to secure the achievement of the purpose specified in the direction order or any other purpose of this Act. (6) An order under subsection (4) has effect, from the date of its making, to vary or amend the direction order without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done or taken to have been done under the direction order.” 11. I will now give a brief account of the events which led up to the making of the direction order. For the most part, the disputes between the parties relate, not so much to the happening of the events related here, as to their legal effect. I will describe these events as objectively as possible. In particular, I will try to avoid commenting on the financial soundness of the Bank in the period in question, since that is hotly disputed. What cannot be disputed is that the Minister considered, rightly or wrongly, that the Bank was in the greatest financial difficulty and that it could not have survived in the period from 2008 onwards without Government support. 12. In March 2011, the Central Bank of Ireland published a document called the Financial Measures Programme in which the Bank was identified as requiring additional regulatory capital of €4 billion. The Central Bank was of opinion that a failure to maintain sufficient funds could provide a ground for revocation of the Bank’s banking licence. By letter dated 28th April, 2011, the Central Bank indicated to the Company that if it did not raise the additional regulatory capital by 31st July, 2011, a number of consequences might follow, including the possible loss by the Bank of its banking licence. In effect, the Bank had, following an extension, up to 31st July 2011 to raise the required regulatory capital. Following efforts by the appellants themselves to raise capital the sum required became €2.7 billion. 13. There are areas of very sharp disagreement between the appellants and the Minister on the one hand and the respondents on the other concerning the financial condition, the prospects of raising capital on the markets and ultimately the viability of the Bank. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence showed that the market capital value of the Bank, based on the market value of its shares, in June 2011 was €19 million, whereas Mr. Skoczylas submitted that its value based on its balance sheet was €2 billion. 14. The greatest contention surrounds the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) of the Company held on 20th July 2011, though not the fact that certain resolutions were passed and other resolutions rejected. The Board had come to the conclusion that the only way for the Bank to survive was to accept the Minister’s proposal for capitalisation. 15. To that end the Board placed three resolutions before the EGM. It recommended that the Bank required capitalisation of €4 billion by 31st July 2011 and that the State should provide the necessary capital. The meeting was attended by less than 500 of the total of 135,000 shareholders. The board resolutions were defeated. Instead three resolutions were proposed by the respondents and passed. These required the Board to explore other means of raising capital, to seek an extension of the deadline and to negotiate further with the Minister. 16. Following the EGM, the Board of the Company was bound to comply with the resolutions passed at the meeting. In that light, the Chairman wrote to the Minister to bring his attention to the concerns raised by the shareholders who had attended the meeting. He also wrote to the Second Secretary of the Department of Finance. He requested an urgent meeting with the Minister. The Board did not secure any improvement in the terms previously available. The Minister proceeded with his proposed direction order. The Company was given the opportunity to make submissions. The Board did not oppose the direction order. 17. On 26th July 2011, McGovern J made the Direction Order pursuant to s. 9 of the Act on the application ex parte of the Minister. The order required the company to make the required alterations in its share capital, to allot shares to the Minister, to make changes in its memorandum and articles of association and to enter into a placing agreement, annexed to the order, with the Minister and the National Treasury Management Agency. The order specifically required the Company not to implement the resolutions passed at the EGM of 20th July 2011. 18. It is unnecessary and inappropriate in this judgment to decide on the legal effect of the Direction Order whether vis à vis the legal status of the resolutions passed at the EGM or otherwise. That is a matter for the High Court. 19. On 3rd August 2011 there was issued in the High Court the Notice of Motion which initiated the proceedings now pending before that Court. It is accepted that the respondents are the applicants in those proceedings. Some early procedural issues were resolved and are not before this Court. The Notice of Motion issued by the respondents seeks the setting aside of the direction order pursuant to s. 11 of the Act. 20. The Notice of Motion was grounded on an affidavit of the same date sworn by the second-named the respondent, though almost all subsequent affidavits have been sworn by Mr. Skoczylas. The grounds advanced in the affidavit are that the opinion of the Minister was unreasonable and was not necessary to secure the achievement of the purposes of the Act. It is claimed that the Act is unconstitutional, though there are now separate constitutional proceedings pending in the High Court. The affidavit also says, inter alia:
the Prudential Capital Assessment Review… and the Prudential Liquidity Assessment Review… stress tests, upon which the… recapitalisation requirements were set, were unduly excessively pessimistic and imposed artificially high and unnecessary capital requirements…. which had hardly anything to do with the real capital needs. the dilutions of the ownership of the shareholders effected by the Direction Order was greatly excessive and not commensurate with the capital contributions which are being made by the Company……The Minister’s actions have been arbitrary and the shareholders’ rights have been abrogated without any consultation. the Direction Order was imposed and implemented under false pretences and there was no genuine urgency or emergency regarding the [Company’s] recapitalization. practical alternatives to the Direction Order existed which would have safeguarded the Government's investment and protected the Irish taxpayers…..” 22. Charleton J., in his judgment of 21st February 2013 noted the argument of the appellants that that they have a vital interest in ensuring that the direction order is not overturned, claiming that it was right and that they said that they needed to participate with a view to ensuring that whatever other order might be made by the High Court would be tailored to their particular circumstances. He posed for himself the question “whether the submissions of [the Company or the Bank] were needed on any issue for the court to reach a just and complete adjudication.” 23. He then made the following observation:
26. On foot of that judgment the High Court order provided “that the Company and the Bank be joined as Notice Parties to the within proceedings entitled to swear affidavit evidence of testimony challenge testimony or affidavit evidence and proffer submissions in that part of the substantive hearing and that part alone as deals with their current financial situation and as deals with what Order ought to be substituted should the Direction Order be impugned”. The effect of that order is to permit the appellants to participate in the proceedings but to a limited extent. The parties agree that it does not permit them to enter into the question of whether the Direction Order should be set aside or even to argue about the effect of such an event. 27. The appellants, in their notice of appeal, argued that the learned High Court judge was in error in limiting their participation in the manner described and in particular:
in applying an incorrect test, namely whether the submissions of the appellants were needed on any issue;
in finding that there had been any delay on the part of the appellants. 29. Looking at the matter from the point of view of principle and, without reference to the applicable Rules governing the joinder of parties, it is clear that the position is significantly different depending on whether the proceedings are purely civil and private or whether they concern issues of public law. In civil litigation, generally speaking, parties are allowed to choose whom they wish to sue. In matters of public law persons other than the public authority may have a real and substantial interest in the outcome. The simplest example is the planning permission. While the judicial review must of necessity be sought on grounds that the planning authority or An Bórd Pleanála on appeal has committed an error of law affecting the validity of its decision, any decision of the court is very likely to affect the very real rights and interests of private persons or corporations. The holder of a planning permission is, of course, potentially affected by the outcome of an application for judicial review of its validity. Civil and public-law proceedings are not, however, in completely watertight compartments. There is an underlying principle that a person is entitled to participate in proceedings which are capable of adversely and directly affecting his or her substantial interests. 30. The joinder of parties in civil proceedings is governed by Order 15, Rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which provides:
32. Keane C.J. approved the judgment of Lynch J in Fincoriz S.A.S. Di Bruno Tassin Din e C v. Ansbacher & Co. Ltd. (Unreported, High Court, 20th April, 1987). That case involved rival claims to a sum of money deposited in a bank. The applicants who wished to be joined had obtained an injunction in separate proceedings restraining the release of the funds. The plaintiff in the action pending before Lynch J had brought the action claiming rights in the same fund. Lynch J said:
34. In the case of judicial review, Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts contains very different provisions. It makes express provision for ensuring that persons directly affected are put on notice of proceedings. The fundamental requirement is in Order 84, r. 22(2) which imposes an express obligation on the applicant to see to it that the “notice of motion or summons must be served on all persons directly affected…” This is reinforced by two additional provisions:
"If on the hearing of the motion or summons the Court is of opinion that any person who ought, whether under this rule or otherwise, to have been served has not been served, the Court may adjourn the hearing on such terms (if any) as it may direct in order that the notice or summons may be served on that person." "On the hearing of any motion or summons under rule 22, any person who desires to be heard in opposition to the motion or summons, and appears to the court to be a proper person to be heard, shall be heard, notwithstanding that he has not been served with notice of the motion or the summons." 36. The judgment of this Court was delivered by Kearns J. It is clear from a reading of that judgment that the Court was of the view that VHI ought to be permitted to remain as a notice party regardless of whether the proceedings were treated under the Rules relating to judicial review or those concerning civil actions. Firstly, Kearns J held that it was “clear beyond question that the present proceedings have at all times been judicial review proceedings and continue now as such.” He cited the provisions of the Rules set out at paragraph 34 above. He referred to the decisions of this Court in O’Keeffe v An Bórd Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39 and Spin Communications T/A Storm F.M. v. Independent Radio and Television Commission (Unreported, Supreme Court, 14th April, 2000). 37. The learned judge concluded that those “cases demonstrate that where a party has a "vital interest in the outcome of the matter" or is "vitally interested in the outcome of the proceedings" or would be "very clearly affected by the result" of the proceedings, it is appropriate for that party to be a notice party in the proceedings.” That passage must not be misunderstood as laying down a test in the terms used by Kearns. What it says that is that it is appropriate to join a party in the circumstances mentioned. Order 84, Rule 22(2) imposes an obligation to notify “ all persons directly affected…” 38. O’Keeffe v An Bórd Pleanála was notable because the beneficiary of the planning permission had abstained from participation in the High Court proceedings. It had not been served with the proceedings but had been notified of them by letter. It had not applied to be joined in the High Court, but had applied to be joined as a notice party only at the stage of the appeal. Finlay C.J. was commenting on the omission to serve that party when he remarked, perhaps obiter, at page 78:
I would interpose the word “directly” before “affected” in that passage. 40. The judgment of Clarke J in Yap v. Children’s University Hospital Temple Street Ltd. [2006] 4 IR 298 explains the relevance of the distinction between public-law and purely private civil proceedings. Referring specifically to the BUPA case, he noted that VHI had been “directly affected by any order that might be made by the court.” At paragraph 22, he continued:
42. I am satisfied that the application to set aside a Direction Order has all or almost all of the indicia of an application for judicial review. It has few, if any, of the characteristics of a civil action. If a choice were to be made between the application of Order 15 and Order 84, the latter would have to apply. Since the Act is silent on the matter and s. 11(2) provides the only guidance by saying that the court “may give such directions with regard to the hearing of the application as it considers appropriate in the circumstances,” it seems to me that order 84 must be applied by analogy. It follows that an applicant for an order pursuant to s. 11 should serve the notice of motion and grounding affidavit on “all persons directly affected…” 43. The appellants, in the first instance, submit that the learned judge adopted the incorrect test when deciding whether to join the appellants. The test is not whether the submissions are needed by the court in order to arrive at a decision. This is not the test adopted in the cases, particularly BUPA. The test is related to the effects on the interests of the party seeking to be joined. They also challenge his view that it was not logical for the appellants to apply and that they had been in delay. 44. The court has before it a vast volume of material concerning the issues, actual and potential arising in the case. For the purposes of this decision, it seems to me that a brief summary is sufficient. Counsel for the appellants summarised the arguments in favour of their being joined by emphasising that the application is for the setting aside of the Direction Order under which capital amounting to some €2.7 billion was subscribed to the Bank. He says that the application to set aside would at the very least create uncertainty for the Bank with consequences which could be enormous. Without the capital provided by the Minister, the Bank would not, he argued, be viable. The essence of and central focus of these arguments is on the fact that the capital was paid to the Bank and the consequence of the setting aside of the Direction Order which provided the basis for that payment. Counsel made the following points:
Under a Placing Agreement entered into by the appellants with the Minister and the National Treasury Management Agency, as one of the conditions of the Direction Order, the Company is required to indemnify various parties, including the Minister, from and against any and all losses or claims incurred by him, including sums which might be payable by the Minister in the event that the Applicants are successful in these proceedings.
47. In making the first point, Mr. Skoczylas complains that the Direction Order, having been made in the terms of the proposed direction order of the Minister was made for the purpose of revoking the decisions of the EGM of 20 July 2011. Those decisions included one whereby the shareholders voted by an overwhelming majority to oppose the terms of the Minister’s proposal. The Company is incapable of acting in contravention of the EGM decisions. The Direction Order is incapable of overriding those decisions. To do so would be directly contrary to the terms of Article 10 of the (codifying) Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. The respondents refer to the following provisions:
“In favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith, any transaction entered into by any organ of the company, being its board of directors or any person registered under these regulations as a person authorised to bind the company, shall be deemed to be within the capacity of the company and any limitation of the powers of that board or person, whether imposed by the memorandum or articles of association or otherwise, may not be relied upon as against any person so dealing with the company.” 49. The second point made forcibly by Mr. Skoczylas is that, contrary to the submission of the appellants, there is no possibility whatever that the recapitalisation funds will have to be repaid. Those funds must stay in the recapitalise relevant institutions. This is required by the EU Implementing Decisions 2011/77/EU and 2011/326/EU. Mr. Skoczylas refers to provisions of those Decisions referring to the requirement that Ireland should have recapitalise its banks in accordance with the findings of the Central Bank of Ireland of 31 March 2011. 50. In the third line of argument, the respondents criticise the delay by the appellants in making the application to be joined. They point to the time limit of five working days which was imposed upon them and complain that a different standard, no time limit, would be applied to the appellants. 51. Apart from those three main lines of argument, the respondents resist the attempt, as they see it, by the appellants to assist the State in defending the very court proceedings in which the respondents themselves claim that the state has unlawfully and effectively taken over complete control of the Company and the Bank. 52. In resolving the issue on this appeal, I start from the conclusion I have already expressed that the appropriate test to apply is by analogy with Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. I do so because an application made under Section 11 of the Act is both in form and in substance essentially a form of judicial review of the decision of the Minister. It follows that any person or body which is “directly affected” should be joined. To begin with, any such person or body should be served with the proceedings. If that has not been done, an order joining him, her or it should be made. Finlay C.J. expressed the matter briefly and clearly in his judgment in O’Keeffe v An Bórd Pleanala. 53. It seems to me obvious, at least prima facie, that the body most likely to be directly affected by the setting aside of a Direction Order is the “relevant institution” in respect of which the order must necessarily have been made. Section 11 itself recognises this by limiting the right to make an application to the “relevant institution” or a member. 54. At this point, I must pause to say that, with great respect, I do not agree with the view of Charleton J that the question to be asked is whether the submissions of the party applying to be joined “are needed on any issue for the court to reach a just and complete adjudication.” It follows that I also disagree with his conclusion that there was “no benefit to be gained by the Court, from these parties attending the hearing and backing up the contention of the Minister that the direction Order was correctly made in the first place.” That is not the correct test. An interested party, i.e. a party directly affected, is, in my view, entitled to be represented to defend his or its interests, even if the decision-maker is there to advance the same arguments. The matter was expressed by Keane C. J. when giving judgment on a question of costs in Spin Communications T/A Storm F.M. v. Independent Radio and Television Commission (Unreported, Supreme Court, 14th April, 2000):
55. I turn then to address the two principal grounds upon which the respondents base their opposition. The first is that, put briefly, it is impossible for the appellants to speak for the Company or the Bank. Because of the EGM resolutions, only the respondents can lawfully do so. The second is that, whatever the appellants say, there is absolutely no possibility of a question arising as to the repayment of the capitalisation funds. Both of these points encounter what I consider to be an insuperable objection. They involve the Court in reaching a final conclusion on this interlocutory motion in advance of the hearing of the main proceedings on two issues which are precisely in contention in those proceedings. Firstly, the proposition that the resolutions passed at an EGM of a company enjoy such binding effect in national and, even more so, in EU law, that it is legally impossible for the Company, even under the compulsion of a subsequent law given effect by a court order is at the heart of the proceedings themselves. The point is based on Article 10 of a Directive which has been implemented in Irish law in the manner set out above and in “favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith.” The respondents contend that the Article makes it impossible for the Company to depart from the resolutions passed at an EGM. If the Court were to reach a conclusion on that issue for the purpose of refusing the appellants the right to participate in the hearing of the applicant, it would be deciding a central issue in that action on a motion and would be pre-empting the High Court’s consideration of the matter. The second proposition is that, in no circumstances whatever, can it be envisaged that any question of the repayment of the capital would arise is equally a matter for decision by the High Court. 56. I have carefully refrained from expressing any view about the strength of the arguments. In my view it is clear that, prima facie, the appellants are at least potentially affected by the s. 11 application. I cannot preclude them from enjoying the right to participate by deciding in advance issues which are essentially matters to be decided in the proceedings themselves. That would be to beg the question. There are two further considerations. Firstly, I cannot see that, in any event, the respondents suffer any disadvantage or prejudice from the presence and full participation of the appellants. It is not suggested that the hearing of the application will be delayed by their participation. They are already notice parties under the limited order of Charleton J. They do not wish to postpone the hearing. Secondly, the appellants are not necessarily in precisely the same position as the Minister. The Minister made the payments required for the capitalisation. The appellants, more precisely the Company, are the recipients. If there is a debate about whether an order setting aside the Direction Order implies repayment, the Minister and the Company clearly have potentially different interests. 57. The third ground or set of grounds touch more on the discretion of the Court. The first point, referred to in fact by the learned High Court judge, is that it would be, in some sense, illogical to permit the appellants to participate in support of the Direction Order in circumstances where the Company and voted at the EGM against it. That, however, is precisely to beg one of the questions which arise for decision in the action. It is arguable -- and I refrain from expressing any view about it -- that there is no lack of logic but that there was a divergences of view between the Board of the Company and the shareholders. 58. The argument about delay involves two points. The first is that it is unfair that the respondents were obliged to comply with an extremely short time limit (at that time, five working days) whereas there was no time limit for the application by the appellants to be joined as notice parties. That, however, is the result of the terms of the Act. It is true that any applicant must comply with the time limit and that the time limit is extremely short. A person or body wishing to support the Direction Order could not possibly apply to be joined within that time, because it would be necessary to wait until an application had been made under the section. Once the matter is, as it necessarily is, outside the time limit it remains for the court to judge whether there has been any undue delay. The learned trial judge criticised the appellants for delay. Nonetheless, he permitted them to participate, though to a limited extent. Even if that point is not entirely decisive, I would say that there was no such delay has should preclude the appellants from exercising what I consider to be their right to participate in the proceedings. In O’Keeffe v An Bórd Pleanala, a party was permitted to be joined as a notice party at the appeal stage, having made a considered decision not to apply in the High Court. That is not, of course, decisive. The matter be must be judged on its merits in each case. There has been some delay, undoubtedly on the part of the appellants. There was a short time, at the beginning of the proceedings, when there were questions about the participation of some of the respondents. They were resolved at an early stage. More crucially, however, the motion brought by the appellants to be joined as notice parties was dated 10th October 2012. The points of claim were not delivered by the respondents until 2nd November 2012. The respondents grounding affidavit was sworn on 31st August 2013. Looking at the matter in broad terms, while there has been some delay, it has not been significant and has not contributed to delay in the proceedings. 59. The question, however, arises whether this Court should, at this stage of the proceedings refer questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Mr. Skoczylas, speaking for the respondents, submits that the Court should now refer three specific questions. They are:
b. “Is a company ([the Company] in the instant case), which has been taken over by the State based on measures, which are alleged in the ongoing court proceedings to have breached EU law, precluded from assisting the State in defending the very court proceedings in question, after the company’s shareholders had decided in general meeting to oppose the State’s takeover?” c. “If the Supreme Court allows [the Company] to assist the State in defending the main action, and if it subsequently turns out that the measures taken by the State to take over [the Company] were indeed incompatible with EU law, would then be in effect allowed to take advantage of its own failure to comply with EU law? Must, therefore, the Supreme Court preclude [the Company] from assisting the State in the defence in the main action?” 60. It is immediately obvious that, in the context of the present case, the object and purpose of each of these questions is to prevent the appellants from being admitted as full notice parties to the claim they make under s. 11 of the Act in the pending proceedings in the High Court. Essentially, the respondents make the point that Article 10 of Directive 2009/101/EC can have the effect that a national Court is precluded from allowing a natural or legal person to become a party to legal proceedings, even in circumstances where that national court considers the proposed party to have a direct interest. The Court has not been referred to any authority for that surprising proposition. 61. The respondents cite the decision of the European Court in Case 222/85 Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651. That case was is best known for the Court’s ruling, at paragraph 19 of the judgment, that “all persons have the right to obtain an effective remedy in a competent court against measures which they consider to be contrary to the principle of equal between men and women” laid down in Directive No. 76/207. The obligation thus imposed on Member States to provide an effective judicial remedy, as the Court stated at paragraph 18, “reflects a general principle of law which underlies the constitutional traditions to the Member States” as well as Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 62. The respondents are unquestionably entitled to call that proposition in aid in pursuit of their application in the High Court. It by no means follows from the proposition that one individual has the right to a judicial remedy to pursue a claim based on EU law against the State that another individual or corporate body directly affected by the claim should not be permitted to argue against it. The contrary appears much more consistent with the principle laid down in Johnston. 63. The principle advanced by the respondents also runs counter to the principle of national procedural autonomy which would appear to include the power of each national court to decide what parties may participate in legal proceedings. That fundamental principle, as stated, for example, by the Court of Justice in C-255/00 Grundig Italiana Spa v Ministero delle Finanze [2002] ECR I-8003, is that:
64. The mechanism for obtaining preliminary rulings pursuant to Article 267 TFEU is based “on a dialogue between one court and another, the initiation of which depends entirely on the national court’s assessment as to whether a reference is appropriate and necessary.” (Case C-2/06 Kempter [2008] ECR I-411). It is true that the Supreme Court, being a court against whose decisions there is no further judicial remedy under national law, may become bound to refer a question of interpretation which it finds necessary to enable it to give judgment in the case before it. However, it is matter for this Court to assess the stage of the proceedings at which any such question should be referred. There may be cases in which a single point of law can be readily identified at an interlocutory stage. More frequently, however, it is appropriate to await any necessary findings of fact and full argument about relevant points of national law, which must be determined before the European Court can conveniently be asked to decide a disputed point of EU law. 65. The Court of Justice in its “Recommendations to National Courts and Tribunals in Relation to the Initiation of Preliminary Ruling Proceedings” (OJ 6.11.2012, 2012/C 338/01) addresses the question of the “appropriate stage at which to make a reference for a preliminary ruling” as follows:
19. It is, however, desirable that a decision to make a reference for a preliminary ruling should be taken when the national proceedings have reached a stage at which the referring court or tribunal is able to define the legal and factual context of the case, so that the Court of Justice has available to it all the information necessary to check, where appropriate, that European Union law applies to the main proceedings. In the interests of the proper administration of justice, it may also be desirable for the reference to be made only after both sides have been heard.” 66. In my view, it would be entirely inappropriate to make any reference at this stage of the proceedings. It is inconceivable that the Court of Justice would hold that there is a duty on a national court positively to exclude a party with a direct interest in proceedings from being heard. The questions posed are at the heart of the respondents’ case in the main proceedings. To refer them now would beg a question which has yet to be fully argued. It is overwhelmingly preferable to allow the application pending in the High Court to proceed to hearing with all parties appearing and participating. A date has been fixed for that hearing. There will be no delay arising from the joining of the appellants. If, on the other hand, the Court were to postpone the joinder of the appellants at this point and make a reference at this there would be inevitable delay pending the decision on the reference. While the ruling is pending, the question arises as to how the existing High Court proceedings are to be affected. If they continue to hearing as contemplated, the appellants will necessarily be excluded from playing the full part which, in my view they are entitled to play. The alternative is that they would be adjourned to await the outcome of the reference with consequent delay to the detriment of all parties. These are powerful considerations which weigh against the making of a reference at this stage of the proceedings. 67. For all of these reasons, I would allow the appeal and I would make an order permitting the appellants to be joined as notice parties to the application in the High Court, without the limitations imposed by the High Court. | ||||||||||||||||