Central Bank's Enforcement Procedures Remain Vulnerable to Constitutional Challenge

24 April 2026

A landmark High Court judgment published this week has dealt a significant blow to the Central Bank of Ireland's fitness and probity enforcement regime, confirming that individuals facing regulatory investigation are entitled to robust constitutional protections - and that the Central Bank failed to meet that standard.

What Happened?

High Court President Justice David Barniville refused to confirm a one-year prohibition notice sought by the Central Bank against a former senior executive of an Irish investment fund management company. The 184-page judgment found that the Central Bank's investigation was "irretrievably tainted" by serious procedural errors.

The case centred on allegations that the executive had failed to be candid with the Central Bank about the suspension of a UK fund manager, which had temporarily frozen certain Irish sub-funds. The Central Bank concluded he had not been truthful in his dealings with the regulator - even though he had been acting on legal advice about what should be disclosed and when, and a Central Bank FAQ document from 2018 appeared to support his approach.

The Core Legal Issues

Barniville J found that the executive's right to natural and constitutional justice, and to basic fairness of procedures, had been fundamentally breached. Several specific failings were identified. The most striking was the absence of any oral hearing during the investigation phase, at a time when the man's credibility and honesty were directly in question. The judge described this as "unfathomable." Where an individual's reputation and livelihood are at stake, procedural shortcuts of this nature will not survive constitutional scrutiny.

The decision-making process also came under severe criticism. A Central Bank director was appointed as decision maker and agreed to meet the executive before issuing the prohibition notice. However, Barniville J found that this meeting was little more than a box-ticking exercise - the decision maker asked no questions and offered no challenge whatsoever, despite the executive claiming factual errors in the investigation report. The judge described this as "incomprehensible."

Crucially, the court refused to send the case back to the Central Bank for reconsideration, finding that subjecting the individual to further investigation would itself cause serious injustice.

Why This Matters

This ruling does not stand alone. It follows a highly critical 2024 Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal (IFSAT) judgment which  found a number of issues in how the Central Bank handled an application - IFSAT found that the Central Bank had denied fair procedures to an individual during the Fitness & Probity process. Together, these decisions expose a systemic vulnerability in how the Central Bank conducts enforcement.

What This Means for Financial Services Professionals

If you are a regulated person or firm facing a Central Bank inquiry, fitness and probity investigation, or enforcement action, these decisions confirm that you have robust constitutional rights. The Central Bank must afford fair procedures, including oral hearings where credibility is genuinely in issue. Decision-making must be substantive rather than procedural.

At Gantly Keely, we advise clients across financial services and regulated industries on regulatory compliance and enforcement matters. If you have concerns about a Central Bank investigation or fitness and probity process, contact our team for a confidential consultation.


This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek independent legal advice in relation to your specific circumstances.