Purcell -v- Central Bank of Ireland & ors [2016] IEHC 514 (29 July 2016)

Purcell -v- Central Bank of Ireland & ors [2016] IEHC 514 (29 July 2016)

The Court held that the Central Bank had jurisdiction under Part IIIC of the Central Bank Act 1942 to hold an inquiry against the applicant, including persons formerly concerned in management. The applicant's arguments regarding ultra vires actions, bias, delay, and breach of fair procedures were rejected, largely on the basis that they had already been determined in Fingleton v Central Bank and that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial grounds to depart from that precedent. The constitutional challenge to Part IIIC as an unlawful exercise of judicial power was also rejected, as the process was found to be administrative, not judicial, in nature. The applicant's claims of damage...

Citation
[2016] IEHC 514
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: John Stanley Purcell; Respondent/defendant: Central Bank of Ireland; Respondent/defendant: Ireland; Respondent/defendant: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Plenary Action / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Regulatory Action, Constitutionality of Administrative Sanctions, Natural Justice and Fair Procedures, Bias and Pre Judgment, Delay in Regulatory Enforcement, Ultra Vires Actions, Right to Good Name and Livelihood
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Financial Regulation Judicial Review of Regulatory Action Constitutionality of Administrative Sanctions Natural Justice and Fair Procedures Bias and Pre Judgment Delay in Regulatory Enforcement +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Stanley Purcell

Applicant/plaintiff

Central Bank of Ireland

Respondent/defendant

Ireland

Respondent/defendant

Attorney General

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Plenary Action / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Bank had jurisdiction to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Part IIIC of the Central Bank Act 1942 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the Central Bank acted ultra vires or in breach of fair procedures in entering into a settlement with INBS and publishing admissions prior to the applicant's inquiry
  3. 3 Whether the delay in initiating proceedings against the applicant was oppressive or prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Central Bank had jurisdiction under Part IIIC of the Central Bank Act 1942 to hold an inquiry against the applicant, including persons formerly concerned in management. The applicant's arguments regarding ultra vires actions, bias, delay, and breach of fair procedures were rejected, largely on the basis that they had already been determined in Fingleton v Central Bank and that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial grounds to depart from that precedent. The constitutional challenge to Part IIIC as an unlawful exercise of judicial power was also rejected, as the process was found to be administrative, not judicial, in nature. The applicant's claims of damage...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by the applicant refused
  • No order of certiorari or prohibition granted