Dowling & ors v Minister for Finance [2013] IESC 37 (31 July 2013)

Dowling & ors v Minister for Finance [2013] IESC 37 (31 July 2013)

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the Minister from completing the sale of Irish Life. The Court found that the appellants were guilty of unreasonable delay in seeking the injunction, that damages would be an adequate remedy if they ultimately succeeded, and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction. The Court further held that national procedural law on injunctions was consistent with EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Citation
[2013] IESC 37
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, John Paul McGann, Tibor Neugebauer, Piotr Skoczylas, Muriel Scorer, Georg Haug, J. Frank Keohane; Defendant/respondent: Minister for Finance
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Standing, Delay, Balance of Convenience, Adequacy of Damages, EU Law Effectiveness, Sale of State Assets, Minority Shareholder Rights
Company Law Constitutional Law EU Law Banking Law Interlocutory Injunctions Standing Delay Balance of Convenience +4 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Dowling, Padraig McManus, John Paul McGann, Tibor Neugebauer, Piotr Skoczylas, Muriel Scorer, Georg Haug, J. Frank Keohane

Plaintiffs/appellants

Minister for Finance

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the Minister from completing the sale of Irish Life Group Limited pending the outcome of related proceedings
  2. 2 Whether delay disentitled the appellants to equitable relief
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the Minister from completing the sale of Irish Life. The Court found that the appellants were guilty of unreasonable delay in seeking the injunction, that damages would be an adequate remedy if they ultimately succeeded, and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction. The Court further held that national procedural law on injunctions was consistent with EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction refused
  • Appeal dismissed