The family of businessman Seán Quinn want to amend their case against the former Anglo Irish Bank in which they deny liability for €2.34 billion in loans to Quinn Group-related companies, the High Court has heard.

The application to amend follows last month's Supreme Court decision granting an appeal by Anglo's successor, Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), and its liquidator Kieran Wallace, concerning the entitlement to make certain claims in the case.

The High Court had ruled the family could, in denying liability, rely substantially on alleged serious breaches by Anglo of the Companies Act and EU Market Abuse Regulations.

Liability

In light of last month’s Supreme Court decision overturning the High Court ruling, the Quinns want to amend their statement of claim in advance of June’s scheduled hearing of the full liability case.

Martin Hayden SC, for the Quinns, said the application to amend their claim flowed from the Supreme Court decision.

A second application by IBRC for directions in relation to the case had been brought as a result of that decision, counsel said.

Brian Murray SC, for IBRC, said the applications were very important because their side were saying the Quinns, in seeking to amend the claim, were attempting to “go behind” the Supreme Court decision.

Mr Justice Robert Haughton said he would hear the applications in early May.

In the Supreme Court appeal, IBRC denied the Quinn claim of illegality by Anglo over guarantees and security given by the family in relation the loans to Quinn companies.

Mr Quinn’s wife, Patricia, and the couple’s five children, argued there were statutory and regulatory breaches by the bank.

IBRC argued even if such breaches were established, which were denied, that would not provide any legal basis for the Quinns to deny liability.

Criteria

Mr Justice Frank Clarke, with whom four other Supreme Court judges concurred, ruled that, in applying certain criteria to both the legislative and market abuse rules, the contracts entered into by the Quinn family, which may breach the law and the regulations, “are nonetheless enforceable”.

Section 60 of the 1963 Companies Act implies that contracts, although unlawful, “are not to be considered void and can only be regarded as void in law if the relevant company decides to treat them as such”, the judge said.