Central Bank of Ireland (Applicant) & CD (Respondent)

In The Matter Of An Application Pursuant To Section 45 Of The Central Bank Reform Act 2010 Between Central Bank of Ireland (Applicant) & CD (Respondent)

** CLICK HERE FOR PRESENTATION **
** CLICK HERE FOR A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT AS PUBLISHED **

This judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice David Barniville in the High Court of Ireland on March 31, 2026, concerns an application by the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) to confirm a Prohibition Notice issued against a respondent, identified as CD.
​
The court ultimately refused to confirm the notice and ordered it to be set aside, finding that the Central Bank’s investigation and decision-making process were marred by serious procedural unfairness.

​Executive Summary of the Case
​

• The Parties: The Central Bank sought to prohibit CD, a former CEO and Executive Director at "EF Fund ManCo," from performing "controlled functions" in the financial sector for one year.
• The Allegations: The CBI’s "Decision-Maker" found CD lacked fitness and probity based on three grounds: poor competence as a "Designated Person," failure to manage concurrent responsibilities, and a lack of transparency with the Central Bank.
• The Ruling on Vires: The court rejected CD's argument that the investigation was ultra vires (beyond legal power) because he had resigned before the notice was issued. The judge ruled the CBI can continue an investigation if the person held the role when the investigation was warranted.
• The Final Verdict: Despite the CBI having the power to investigate, the court found the process was "irretrievably tainted" by significant and serious errors regarding fair procedures. The court declined to remit the matter back to the CBI, effectively ending the prohibition.

Certain Criticisms of the Central Bank of Ireland

The judgment contains several pointed criticisms of how the Central Bank’s Investigator and Decision-Maker handled the case. The court found that the CBI failed to exercise its discretion in a manner compliant with constitutional justice.

1. Failure to Conduct Essential Interviews

• Subject Interview: The court found it "unfathomable" that the Investigator never interviewed CD, despite repeatedly describing him as the "key" and "primary" witness.
• Third-Party Witnesses: The CBI refused to interview several relevant individuals identified by CD, wrongly insisting it was CD’s job to provide "submissions" from them rather than the CBI’s job to gather evidence.
• Wrong Legal Test: The Investigator used an incorrect legal approach, refusing to gather evidence because he felt there were no "gaps" in the documents, rather than focusing on the fairness of the procedure.
  
  

2. Denial of an Oral Hearing

• Mandatory Requirement: The court ruled an oral hearing was "clearly required" because CD's credibility, honesty, and truthfulness were directly under attack.
• Serious Consequences: Given the allegations could be "catastrophic" for CD’s career, the CBI’s failure to provide an oral hearing at the investigation stage was a "violation of the Respondent’s right to fair procedures".
  
  

3. Flaws in the Decision-Making "Meeting"

• "Box-Ticking" Exercise: The judge described the meeting between CD and the appointed Decision-Maker as an "entirely empty and ultimately futile exercise" and a "perfunctory box-ticking exercise".
  Lack of Inquiry: The Decision-Maker asked CD zero questions during the meeting, yet later issued a notice finding his "evidence" to be "unconvincing".
• Failure to Challenge: The court found it "incomprehensible" that the Decision-Maker reached damaging findings about CD’s honesty without ever putting those specific concerns to him during their meeting.

4. Unfair Conduct during Information Gathering

• Premature Closure: The Investigator closed the information-gathering stage without warning CD’s solicitors or checking if CD was medically fit to be interviewed at that time.
  Lack of Deference: The court explicitly stated that the Central Bank is not entitled to "any significant deference" regarding whether its procedures complied with natural and constitutional justice.​

​​Court's Final Assessment
​
The judge concluded that justice was "unquestionably not done" to the respondent. He noted that while the CBI emphasized the need to protect the financial system, those goals do not "dilute" the obligation to provide basic fairness to the individuals it investigates.