Legal action against civil servants

gearoid_murphy

Patrick Neary was the financial regulator from February 2006 to January 2009. During his watch, Ireland suffered a systemic financial failure, unprecedented in the history of the Republic and amongst the worst across the planet. I still find myself becoming nauseous when watching him on Prime Time (Oct 2008), where he refused to acknowledge that there was any weakness in the Irish financial system due to the struggling property market.

His failure to act upon these warning signs has had a measurable impact on the death rates in this country from stress, suicide and financial despair. I believe he did not act due to negligence, be it incompetence, cowardice or collusion with the banks to protect their stocks.

Is it possible to sue Mr Neary, not as a servant of the State but has an individual whose negligence resulted directly and indirectly in the deaths of Irish citizens.

I would appreciate insight from those with legal knowledge.

MagicSean

No. There is no way that i can see to link his actions to anyones death.

Paulw

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Is it possible to sue Mr Neary, not as a servant of the State but has an individual whose negligence resulted directly and indirectly in the deaths of Irish citizens.

Why not give it a try and let us know how you get on. You'll need a damn good solicitor though, and one who'll take your money up front, because I can't see any way you could win.

ResearchWill

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Patrick Neary was the financial regulator from February 2006 to January 2009. During his watch, Ireland suffered a systemic financial failure, unprecedented in the history of the Republic and amongst the worst across the planet. I still find myself becoming nauseous when watching him on Prime Time (Oct 2008), where he refused to acknowledge that there was any weakness in the Irish financial system due to the struggling property market.

His failure to act upon these warning signs has had a measurable impact on the death rates in this country from stress, suicide and financial despair. I believe he did not act due to negligence, be it incompetence, cowardice or collusion with the banks to protect their stocks.

Is it possible to sue Mr Neary, not as a servant of the State but has an individual whose negligence resulted directly and indirectly in the deaths of Irish citizens.

I would appreciate insight from those with legal knowledge.

First you will have to show a personal loss to you, brought on by his action or negligence. If you did that your big problem would be that his action was in his employment, so his employer would be vicariously liable, so you would then be suing Ireland. Under public policy doctrine I doubt the court, even if you got that far would go with you. So if you have about 100k to waste go for it.

gearoid_murphy

How can it be that the man tasked with regulating our finances can fail so completely at his job yet no consequences have been brought to bear against him?, it's repulsive.

Regardless of linking his negligence to deaths of Irish citizens, is there any legal action that could be brought against him by private citizens?

gearoid_murphy

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Regardless of linking his negligence to deaths of Irish citizens, is there any legal action that could be brought against him by private citizens?

For what?

Manach

Just for arguments sake - under trust law?
At a pinch it could be argued that any such as person X, who was in State employ was a defacto trustee to administer and oversee the common wealth. Being such a trust, X did not act with the care and attention that a prudent person would act with their own affairs and hence is liable?

Marcusm

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Patrick Neary was the financial regulator from February 2006 to January 2009. During his watch, Ireland suffered a systemic financial failure, unprecedented in the history of the Republic and amongst the worst across the planet. I still find myself becoming nauseous when watching him on Prime Time (Oct 2008), where he refused to acknowledge that there was any weakness in the Irish financial system due to the struggling property market.

His failure to act upon these warning signs has had a measurable impact on the death rates in this country from stress, suicide and financial despair. I believe he did not act due to negligence, be it incompetence, cowardice or collusion with the banks to protect their stocks.

Is it possible to sue Mr Neary, not as a servant of the State but has an individual whose negligence resulted directly and indirectly in the deaths of Irish citizens.

I would appreciate insight from those with legal knowledge.

With all respect to Mr Neary, I think it as obvious from his first public appearance that he was not at all adequate for the position which he held. One of McWilliams's books I think described his TV appearance as being the point at which faith in the system of financial regulation disappeared together with the perception of security of Irish bank deposits. Whether it was his personal failings, or those above him, is fairly irrelevant in the context you cite.

gearoid_murphy

@Kayroo, for retribution, ordinary people have been asked to bear so much because of the financial meltdown, if Neary had done his job as had been expected, the brunt of the suffering now endured by Irish citizens would've been reduced. The office of the financial regulator is supposed to be independent of the political apparatus, he should bear the responsibility for its failure. Instead he has been lavished with a sickeningly extravagant state pension. It is utterly unjust that no consequence has been brought to bear upon him. There must be a way.

MagicSean

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

@Kayroo, for retribution, ordinary people have been asked to bear so much because of the financial meltdown, if Neary had done his job as had been expected, the brunt of the suffering now endured by Irish citizens would've been reduced. The office of the financial regulator is supposed to be independent of the political apparatus, he should bear the responsibility for its failure. Instead he has been lavished with a sickeningly extravagant state pension. It is utterly unjust that no consequence has been brought to bear upon him. There must be a way.

Retribution. The cornerstone of a good justice system.

Peregrinus

Manach wrote: »

Just for arguments sake - under trust law?
At a pinch it could be argued that any such as person X, who was in State employ was a defacto trustee to administer and oversee the common wealth. Being such a trust, X did not act with the care and attention that a prudent person would act with their own affairs and hence is liable?

Not a chance.

The essence of a trustee's role is that he is the legal, or nominal, owner of some property (the "trust property"), but that he is bound to use it for the benefit of someone else (the "beneficiary", who is said to be the "beneficial owner" of the trust property).

But, whatever the "common wealth" is, Neary was not the legal owner of it, and consequently cannot have been the trustee of it. And he certainly wasn't the legal owner of the assets of banks and similar institutions, or of shares in those banks and other institutions.

gearoid_murphy

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

@Kayroo, for retribution, ordinary people have been asked to bear so much because of the financial meltdown, if Neary had done his job as had been expected, the brunt of the suffering now endured by Irish citizens would've been reduced. The office of the financial regulator is supposed to be independent of the political apparatus, he should bear the responsibility for its failure. Instead he has been lavished with a sickeningly extravagant state pension. It is utterly unjust that no consequence has been brought to bear upon him. There must be a way.

I didn't mean why should he be pursued. I meant under what cause of action. I certainly can't see any that would have a snowball's chance of success.

gearoid_murphy

@Kayroo, surely his failures could at least be categorised as neglecting his duties. Several economists and journalists successfully predicted the implosion of our economy, if they could do this, he certainly could have too. The office of the financial regulator is supposed to be independent, he has no one to blame but himself. His failure to act on the warning signs has cost Irish citizens a great deal in taxes and lost opportunities. Of course, it can be correctly argued that bankers and politicians are also to blame but if we're going to start anywhere, it should be with the man tasked with monitoring the financial health of the nation. Let me make myself clear, this is not about petty vengeance, Neary was entrusted with a serious responsibility that he failed, failed miserably, I might had. We, as private citizens of this Republic, must hold these individuals to the full consequences of failing this responsibility, what hope for us as a society if we do not?

Milk & Honey

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

@Kayroo, surely his failures could at least be categorised as neglecting his duties.

So what? Since when has that amounted to a cause of action in a court? You are close to joining the Denis Riordan school of law. Not every perceived wrong can or will be remedied in the courts.
You can initiate any number of actions you like against Patrick Neary. Your chances of success are extremely slim and most likely he will be indemnified for his costs and damages by the state, the very same state who would have to pay your costs. Net result, the taxpayers are worse off than before.

BornToKill

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Is it possible to sue Mr Neary, not as a servant of the State but has an individual whose negligence resulted directly and indirectly in the deaths of Irish citizens.

It's certainly possible to sue him but your prospects of success wouldn't appear great. You seem to be suggesting suing him in his personal capacity as an individual but based on alleged negligence of work duties. I'd say you would struggle to establish standing.

Carawaystick

not sure how fraud law works here ( those who do are rolling their eyes !)

but if person said I'll do job X if you pay me EUR Y and just completely didn't deliberately is that not fraud?

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

not sure how fraud law works here ( those who do are rolling their eyes !)

but if person said I'll do job X if you pay me EUR Y and just completely didn't deliberately is that not fraud?

No. Fraud requires dishonesty. To establish dishonesty you'd have to show that, when the person said "I will do X" he had no intention of doing it.

Plus, in the context of a job, saying "I'll do the job" is not a commitment that you will do it successfully, or that you're doing it will have the outcome that the employer hopes for, or whatever. Some economists and commentators predicted the collapse of the Irish financial system; Neary (and others) did not agree with them. As it turns out, they were correct. This is not enough to establish, though, that Neary was negligent (or worse), and there's no evidence that he ever held himself out as capable of foretelling the future.

Besides, we should bear in mind that if Neary had been among those predicting armageddon, he would never have been appointed to the job. We cannot show, then, that if Neary had been gifted with greater foresight the crisis would have been averted.

gearoid_murphy

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, in the context of a job, saying "I'll do the job" is not a commitment that you will do it successfully, or that you're doing it will have the outcome that the employer hopes for, or whatever

Agreed, but it is a commitment that you will do it competently. Neary had the investigative tools and the responsibility to evaluate the adherence of the banks to the mandatory financial regulations.

The fact that other independent observers had correctly highlighted the weaknesses in the financial system despite not having access to the financial details of the banks indicates that this should have been obvious to Neary, given his far more informed perspective.

Indeed, given what we now know about the state of the banks during this time, it seems impossible that Neary could not have been aware of the troubles we were in. I believe he did not act because he viewed his role not as a regulator of the banks but as a facilitator for the banks. I suspect that he was reluctant to pursue any course of action which could damage the banks because he viewed them as the sacred cows of the 'Celtic Tiger'. This surely has some legal traction?

BornToKill

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Indeed, given what we now know about the state of the banks during this time, it seems impossible that Neary could not have been aware of the troubles we were in. I believe he did not act because he viewed his role not as a regulator of the banks but as a facilitator for the banks. I suspect that he was reluctant to pursue any course of action which could damage the banks because he viewed them as the sacred cows of the 'Celtic Tiger'. This surely has some legal traction?

No, your beliefs and suspicions do not have legal traction. You will need some evidence.

Milk & Honey

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

I suspect that he was reluctant to pursue any course of action which could damage the banks because he viewed them as the sacred cows of the 'Celtic Tiger'. This surely has some legal traction?

To get legal traction there needs to be a cause of action. you have yet to identify one.

ted1

if there was a case woudl't his employer the state, would be vicarousily liable?

gearoid_murphy

ted1 wrote: »

if there was a case woudl't his employer the state, would be vicarousily liable?

As a citizen of the Republic, could I not sue the former financial regulator on behalf of the State?

gearoid_murphy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

To get legal traction there needs to be a cause of action. you have yet to identify one.

Could you elaborate on what a course of action entails?

Milk & Honey

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Could you elaborate on what a course of action entails?

I said nothing about a course of action so I cannot elaborate.

gearoid_murphy

BornToKill wrote: »

No, your beliefs and suspicions do not have legal traction. You will need some evidence.

I agree, I would argue that such evidence exists, internal Anglo Irish Bank audits indicate that the financial director was aware of the discrepancies within the bank. Apparently, there was an Oireachtas committee tasked with investigating why Neary did not act of this information but I haven't found any additional data on it. Google this string: "Neary to face new grilling over bank scandal" to see the original article.

gearoid_murphy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I said nothing about a course of action so I cannot elaborate.

Sorry, I meant *cause* of action.

BornToKill

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

I agree, I would argue that such evidence exists, internal Anglo Irish Bank audits indicate that the financial director was aware of the discrepancies within the bank.

What financial director are you talking about here? An Anglo director?

gearoid_murphy

BornToKill wrote: »

What financial director are you talking about here? An Anglo director?

I meant the financial regulator.

Milk & Honey

gearoid_murphy wrote: »

Sorry, I meant *cause* of action.

A cause of action known to the law e.g. contract, tort etc. must be pleaded by the Plaintiff in any action. In a criminal case it must be claimed that a specific crime known to the law has been committed by the defendant.

Howjoe1

In reply to the original poster, I think no chance.

But a question I have...who was responsible for the appointment of Neary in the first place? he was totally out of his depth.

gearoid_murphy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

In a criminal case it must be claimed that a specific crime known to the law has been committed by the defendant.

A criminal case would be hard to argue, what about a civil one?, bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer. I'm looking for means to an end, I'm well aware that the odds are against this but doing nothing and accepting the situation is worse than trying and failing.

I don't want to sue the state, I don't think that'll achieve anything other than wasting tax revenue. Is it possible to sue a civil servant on behalf of the state?, ie, can a private citizen or a consortium of citizens represent the state in a civil case?