Lawyers for the former Irish Nationwide Chief Executive Michael Fingleton have told the Court of Appeal that the purpose of the society's case against him seemed to be to put a sick, elderly man in the stocks and it would be unfair and unjust to allow it to proceed.
Last year, the High Court refused to stop Irish Nationwide’s case against Mr Fingleton over the alleged negligent mismanagement of its affairs.
The special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation who took over Irish Nationwide after its collapse, claim that losses of €6bn between 2008 and 2010 arose from loans for development made when Mr Fingleton was CEO. They allege he had too much control over the business of the society and that he flouted its lending rules.
Mr Fingleton is appealing the High Court’s decision through his wife, Eileen and son, Michael Junior, who have enduring powers of attorney because of his ill health.
Senior Counsel, Mícheál P O’Higgins told the Appeal Court today that allowing Irish Nationwide’s action to go ahead after such a long time, meant there was a real and serious risk of an unfair trial and would place an inexcusable and unfair burden on Mr Fingleton to defend it.
Mr O’Higgins said Mr Fingleton would turn 85 in January. He said he had lost the sight in his right eye in 2015, he had been diagnosed with skin cancer in 2017, he had been hospitalised by a severe depressive episode in 2018 and in May 2019, he suffered a devastating stroke.
As a result of the stroke, Mr O’Higgins said his client had suffered cognitive impairment which had become worse over time and doctors had concluded he lacked capacity to conduct his own affairs.
Mr O’Higgins told the court Mr Fingleton’s short-term memory was virtually gone and communication with family members was very difficult. He was confined to a wheelchair and relies on 24-hour care and assistance for all his living requirements and self-care needs.
He said he was physically feeble and unable to stay awake for more than a few hours at a time and would not be in a position to provide instructions to his solicitors or provide any evidence at trial. Doctors had assessed his cognitive ability as being in the typical range for someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease.
He said the building society was trying to blame Mr Fingleton for the entire collapse of Irish Nationwide and he would not be in a position to instruct his lawyers or to defend himself.
Mr O’Higgins said the proceedings had also had a significant impact on Mr Fingleton’s dignity and well-being and would pose a serious threat to his health.
He said Mr Fingleton had experienced an extreme level of public vilification after the collapse of INBS and his family were strongly of the view that it had destroyed his life for the past 15 years.
He said it seemed "unfair and mean spirited" to suggest he deserved to be further vilified. He said it was also unfair on his family who were now funding the defence of an enormous case at a time when their father required expensive 24-hour medical care.
Mr O’Higgins also submitted that the scale and breadth of the allegations against Mr Fingleton were unusual as well as being vengeful and oppressive.
He said the plaintiffs were trying to visit sole legal responsibility for the building society’s entire business losses on one individual and to have him recorded in history as the person who collapsed the society and caused the banking crisis.
There was a "questionable futility" to the proceedings he said when the case would take weeks and it was not realistically intended to recover €6bn from Mr Fingleton.
The proceedings seemed to be punitive or vengeful, he said, and seemed to have as their purpose the placing of a sick, elderly and infirm defendant "in the stocks", in order to sate public anger and seek a legacy declaration that Mr Fingleton was the central villain in a narrative that led to the banking collapse and recession.
Mr O'Higgins also questioned why the building society was claiming a sum of €6bn against Mr Fingleton when he said the total figure of all the loans specified in its claim against him was just over €500,000.
He will continue his submissions to the court tomorrow after which lawyers for IBRC will reply.
