Comments on: Challenge to legality of Anglo promissory note set for High Court this coming week

By: namawinelake

namawinelake — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:01:41 +0000

@Vicky, thanks, the full demand has been publicised by David and the documents are here

http://namawinelake.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/davidhalljudicialreviewcosts.pdf

Both the amount of costs claimed, and the detail provided are outrageous and there may be a blogpost later.

By: Vicky Donnelly

Vicky Donnelly — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:38:50 +0000

Any update on this? From David Hall – “IBRC legal costs €27000 they are seeking against me . This resulted from 35 minutes in court and 24 hour time frame. I originally sought to take the promissory note case by judicial review and changed the next day to go by way of plenary
. No wonder IBRC are in liquidation . These charges are criminal and I’m opposing them tomorrow in the taxing masters court. EBS for exactly the same are looking for €8000 legal fees”

By: Will a lefty T.D. now step fourth to challenge Promissory Note deal in our Courts? - Page 6

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:18:35 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Court challenge to promissory notes - Page 23

Court challenge to promissory notes - Page 23 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:12:32 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Joseph Ryan

Joseph Ryan — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:28:45 +0000

@BrianLucey
“A sensible solution would be to set out to lose this……”
Well said. And well done to David Hall.

By: JeromeK

JeromeK — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:28:44 +0000

I wish him well in his action;

(In my layman opinion) Article 45 states principles that are not consistent with the actions taken to support Anglo Irish Bank. Combine this with the (now accepted) fact that the banks did not disclose seriousness of their situation either on night of guarantee and pending criminal charges and its hard to see how the actions taken could be perceived for common good.

Were the promissory note payments found to be unconstitutional then this would strengthen the government position with securing a deal though that would depend on a judgement well before end of March I guess.

If he loses then I for one would like to see some constitutional protection to prevent elected officials from signing financial guarantees/purchases/other commitments above a certain value without holding a referendum/citizens poll. As citizens we are essentially shareholders of the state, and this condition would be a standard clause in any private company shareholder agreement for obvious reasons.

We held a major referendum on children’s rights that might impact less than 1% of children while there is nothing to prevent our current gold-pensioned elected officials decreeing that 100% of our children/grandchildren should end up paying the principle back on reckless loans of Celtic Tiger banks !

Lets wait and See!

By: OMF

OMF — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:06:27 +0000

The Promissory Notes are essentially a decision by the Irish Government to pay Anglo/IBRC a cash stream of €3.1bn every year because “we love them so much”. In this sense, they are equivalent to the voted payments to other departments every year.

However, it’s not clear to me that it is unconstitutional for the government to make such payments. It might constitute excess, favouritism, or even cronyism, but these are not strictly speaking prohibited actions. While it certainly does constitute state support for a private company, this also is not in itself prohibited by the constitution.

The notes are voted expenditure every year(except this year of course). If the Dail says “OK give these guys the money”, I don’t see how you can constitutionally object to this. And the Dail does say this, every single year, when it passes the budget.

In any event, the Irish Constitution is not a document that the Irish state or successive governments (or indeed the courts) have ever paid much attention to, and I don’t expect them to start doing so now. Never go up against civil servants when pensions are on the line.

By: i luv ny

i luv ny — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:31:43 +0000

Some things don’t translate well in court cases……malice, fear, embarrassment at presiding over the destruction of the nations most enduring dynasty club.
JR Ewing himself would have been proud of such a stroke. Can’t you hear him saying “Don’t be polite when it comes to destroying the opposition before they even take power,… promissory notes, that way..nobody wins”
Oh, of course, it’s a technical issue, there are no human factors involved, silly me.
As if a group of politicians, sons of politicians, about to be whooped at the polls, would have thought that way, nah, it’s a technical issue alright.
I’ve been watching too much Dallas.

By: brianmlucey

brianmlucey — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:09:54 +0000

If course the goby is at the same time as defending this trying to change it at the European level.
Expect their arguments here to be used in evidence against them by the FANGS. A sensible solution would be to set out to lose this. They can then say to the ecb so sorry but those nasty judges. …
The Germany backbenchers who’ve been off Karlshrule every time a solution had emerged could n hardly complain.