Businessman Seán Quinn's family have been granted permission to amend their legal action to argue they never signed the final version of two of six share pledges under which receivers appointed by Anglo Irish Bank took over their firms in 2011.
The three-judge Court of Appeal yesterday granted the appeal by Ms Patricia Quinn and her five adult children against the High Court's refusal to allow that amendment for their case, due to open next month.
The case, aimed at avoiding liability for €2.34 billion in loans advanced by Anglo to Quinn companies, is against State-owned Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, Anglo's successor in title, and its liquidator Kieran Wallace. IBRC previously secured orders joining Seán Quinn snr and two former senior executives with the Quinn Group, Dara O'Reilly and Liam McCaffrey, as third parties.
Pages switched
The Quinns sought to amend their claim after learning, from documents discovered for the case, the two share pledges at issue were allegedly amended after being signed and signature pages from the earlier versions were switched to the amended versions.
In an affidavit, Aoife Quinn said email correspondence between Darragh Blake of the law firm William Fry, then acting for IBRC, and Mr O'Reilly showed the two men discussing the switching of signature pages. Ms Quinn's claim Mr O'Reilly was not an agent of the family is disputed by IBRC.
Moving the appeal, Martin Hayden SC, for the Quinns, argued the amendment was necessary to do justice and would not prejudice the defence.
Shane Murphy SC, for IBRC, argued the amendment application came too late and involved a “drastic” change in the Quinns’ claim, as they had not disputed execution of the share pledges but challenged the circumstances of execution. Mr Justice Seán Ryan, presiding and sitting with Mr Justice Peter Kelly and Mr Justice Garret Sheehan, noted this case was initiated in May 2011 and was complex and difficult litigation.
The judge said witness statements from the Quinns last December asserted they had not signed certain share pledge documents. That was “news” to the defence because until then the Quinns’ case was they were persuaded and induced to sign and execute the share pledges and other documents.
When the Quinns sought leave to amend in the High Court, IBRC took a “pragmatic” view, saying it would not object provided the Quinns undertook to make no further application to amend, the judge noted. He disagreed with IBRC’s insistence on such an undertaking.
