Former INBS Boss Loses Bid to Halt Negligence Trial
Michael Fingleton, the former head of Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS), has failed in his bid to stop a civil trial alleging he mishandled the lender before its collapse. The Supreme Court ruled that Fingleton did not meet the required criteria for dismissing the case before a full hearing. Fingleton, who is 86 years old, sought to have the 2012 claim brought by the liquidators of Irish bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) dismissed. IBRC took over INBS after it succumbed to the financial crisis of 2008. his legal team argued that he could not receive a fair trial due to health issues following a stroke and the passage of time as the alleged events. The liquidators, represented by senior counsel John D Fitzgerald, opposed the dismissal, arguing it would be a “draconian step”. The original claim, initially valued at €6 billion, has been reduced to €290 million and focuses on five loans issued between 2006 and 2009.Fingleton denies the allegations against him.Supreme Court Ruling
Mr.Justice Séamus Woulfe, delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment, stated that ill-health alone is not sufficient grounds to dismiss a case. He found that the Court of Appeal correctly applied legal principles in determining that Fingleton had not met the “very high burden” required to secure a dismissal. The lower court correctly concluded that Fingleton’s inability to instruct his lawyers or give evidence “falls short, and considerably so, of the threshold” to dismiss the case before trial. Justice Woulfe emphasized that the balance of justice and fairness would remain a key consideration for the judge presiding over the trial next year. the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, wiht Judges Elizabeth Dunne, Iseult O’Malley, Gerard Hogan, and Aileen Donnelly concurring. Fingleton led Irish Nationwide from 1971 to 2009, initially as managing director and later as chief executive. His son, michael Fingleton jnr, has stated that his father, who was worth €75 million in 2006, now has less than €25,000 in two bank accounts and faces outstanding judgment debts exceeding €10.7 million as of late 2022.## A Legal Setback for Former INBS Boss
**Archyde:** Today we’re joined by legal analyst Laura Walsh to discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case against former Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) CEO, Michael Fingleton. Laura, can you bring our readers up to speed on the key developments?
**Laura Walsh:** Certainly. Michael Fingleton,who headed INBS for nearly four decades,is facing a civil trial alleging he mishandled the lender before its collapse during the 2008 financial crisis. the liquidators of IBRC, which took over INBS, brought the initial €6 billion claim in 2012. That amount has been reduced to €290 million and focuses on five specific loans issued between 2006 and 2009.
**Archyde:** Mr. Fingleton tried to have the case dismissed, citing his health, specifically after suffering a stroke, and the considerable time elapsed as the alleged events. What was the Supreme court’s reasoning for rejecting his request?
**Laura Walsh:** The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that Mr. Fingleton’s legal team hadn’t met the threshold for dismissing the case. While acknowledging his health challenges, the court ruled that ill-health alone isn’t grounds for such a decision. They also emphasized that Mr. Fingleton’s inability to fully participate “falls short” of what’s required for dismissal before a full trial.
**Archyde:**
The trial is set for next year. Does this ruling mean it’s assured to proceed as planned, or could there be further legal maneuvers?
**Laura Walsh:**
Next year’s trial is highly likely, though, the presiding judge will need to carefully consider the balance of justice and fairness given Mr. Fingleton’s health. The question of whether a fair trial is absolutely possible will likely be a key point of contention.
**Archyde:** This case carries critically important weight, both for those impacted by INBS’s collapse and for understanding corporate accountability. Do you anticipate this ruling setting a precedent for similar cases in the future?
**Laura walsh:** It’s hard to say definitively if this will be a landmark case setting precedents. However, it certainly highlights the complexities involved when balancing a defendant’s health with the pursuit of justice and accountability in complex financial cases.
**Archyde:**
This is undoubtedly a developing story. Laura, thank you for providing us with your expert analysis.
**Laura Walsh:** My pleasure.
**Archyde:** As this case unfolds, we want to hear from you. Do you think the Supreme Court made the right decision? Does Mr. Fingleton’s health sufficiently compromise his ability to receive a fair trial? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comments below.
## Archyde Interview: Former INBS Boss Fails to Avoid Negligence Trial
**Archyde:** Welcome back to Archyde News. Today we’re joined by legal analyst Laura Walsh to discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Michael Fingleton, former head of Irish Nationwide Building Society. Mr. Fingleton had attempted to halt a civil trial alleging negligence in his handling of the lender before its collapse in 2008. Laura, can you give our viewers a rundown of the situation?
**Laura Walsh:** Certainly. Michael Fingleton,who lead INBS for decades,was sued by the liquidators of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation,which took over INBS after the financial crisis.The case centers around five loans issued between 2006 and 2009. The liquidators allege Mr. Fingleton mishandled these loans, contributing to the society’s collapse.
**Archyde:** Mr. Fingleton argued he couldn’t recieve a fair trial due to his age (he’s 86) and health issues following a stroke. The Supreme Court rejected his bid to dismiss the case. Why?
**Laura Walsh:** While the court acknowledged Mr. Fingleton’s health challenges, it emphasized that ill-health alone doesn’t warrant dismissing a case. Mr. Fingleton failed to meet the high legal threshold required to prove a fair trial was unachievable.
**Archyde:** What does this mean for mr. Fingleton moving forward?
**Laura Walsh:** He will have to face trial next year. The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that the judge presiding over the trial will balance the need for justice with fairness to Mr. fingleton, given his health and age.
**Archyde:** this case has attracted notable attention. What broader implications might this ruling have?
**Laura Walsh:** This ruling reinforces the principle that even high-profile individuals are subject to the same legal standards. It also underscores the difficulty of dismissing cases based on health concerns alone, highlighting the importance of a thorough legal process regardless of the circumstances.
**Archyde:** Laura, thank you for providing your expertise on this complex case. We’ll be sure to keep our viewers updated as the trial progresses.
