The decision of the High Court (Court) in Central Bank of Ireland v CD [2026] IEHC 203 provides clear judicial guidance on what constitutes fair investigation.

Although the case arose under the Central Bank’s fitness and probity regime, the principles articulated by the Court are of wider relevance and are likely to inform the conduct of internal corporate investigations, disciplinary processes, professional conduct inquiries and regulatory enforcement actions, particularly where serious allegations and reputational consequences arise.

At its core, the judgment reaffirms that fair procedures and natural justice are the core of all serious investigations, regardless of the investigator’s expertise or statutory remit.

Background

The applicant, the Central Bank of Ireland (Central Bank), applied to the Court for an order confirming a Prohibition Notice (Notice) issued by the Central Bank to a former senior executive in the investment funds industry.  One of the central issues before the Court was whether significant and serious errors vitiated the process leading to the formation of the Notice and, if so, whether the Court should set it aside.

The Court analysed the investigatory steps taken by the Central Bank. It concluded that the opinion set out in the Notice (and the process that led to its formation) was vitiated by a series of significant and serious errors, notably the many breaches of the respondent’s right to natural and constitutional justice and basic fairness of procedures. As such, the Court refused to make an order confirming the Notice and instead set it aside on those grounds.

Fairness is calibrated to seriousness and consequence

As the Court articulated, the procedures required in an investigation must be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences for the individual concerned. The content of fair procedures depends on context, and each case must be looked at independently. In assessing what fairness requires, particular weight must be given to:

• the seriousness of the allegations,
• whether a respondent’s credibility and honesty are in question, and
• the practical consequences of adverse findings for the respondent’s reputation and ability to work.

The more serious the allegations and the consequences for the respondent, the more extensive the procedures must be to comply with the respondent’s right to natural and constitutional justice and to the basic fairness of procedures. Written processes that may suffice in lower‑stakes inquiries will often be inadequate.

Direct engagement with the subject of the Investigation

Direct engagement with the subject of an investigation is often a core requirement of procedural fairness, particularly where allegations turn on intent, honesty or credibility. This is especially so where the individual under investigation is identified as a central witness to the events in question. Where an investigator proposes to make adverse findings on matters of integrity or candour, the requirements of natural justice will rarely be satisfied by reliance on documents and written submissions alone.

This principle has clear application beyond the regulatory context. In internal investigations, processes that deliberately avoid interviews or direct engagement for reasons of efficiency or expediency carry a significant risk, may undermine the integrity of the process, and may expose any subsequent findings to challenge.

Failure to interview witnesses

Where a respondent identifies individuals who were directly involved in the matters under investigation, investigators must give genuine consideration to whether those witnesses should be interviewed. A decision to exclude such evidence cannot be justified solely by reference to investigatory efficiency or an asserted sufficiency of documentary material.

The critical issue that an investigator must consider is whether the absence of witness evidence undermines the fairness and balance of the process, particularly where facts are disputed, or credibility is in issue. In serious cases, a failure to engage with witnesses identified by the respondent may render the investigation procedurally unfair and expose subsequent findings to challenge.

When Oral Hearings become necessary

Although the statutory framework in CD gave the investigator discretion to convene an oral hearing, the Court stressed that constitutional fairness may require one, regardless of how the legislation frames that discretion. In determining if an oral hearing is necessary, investigators should consider:

• whether material facts are in dispute,
• whether the respondent’s credibility is under challenge,
• whether the allegations are exceptionally serious, and
• the potential consequences of the investigation.

Investigators should be mindful that an oral hearing may be required even when one is not expressly requested.

“Box‑ticking” opportunities do not satisfy natural justice

A genuine opportunity to be heard must involve meaningful engagement; it is not satisfied by simply allowing an individual to speak without scrutiny or response. A respondent’s opportunity to be heard must be real and substantive, not merely procedural. A process that affords an individual a theoretical chance to make representations but does not involve meaningful engagement with the issues in dispute will not satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

In CD, the respondent attended a meeting with the Central Bank before the Notice was issued. However, the Court found that no questions were asked of the respondent, no aspects of the respondent’s evidence were challenged, and no credibility issues were explored, notwithstanding that adverse findings were later made on the respondent’s honesty and candour. In those circumstances, the Court characterised the meeting as a formalistic exercise that failed to address the fundamental procedural deficiencies that had arisen earlier in the process.

The Court rejected the Central Bank’s suggestion that such a meeting could cure defects in an investigation. Where credibility and truthfulness are in issue, fairness requires that those matters be put to the individual and tested before findings are made. Permitting submissions or representations, without engaging with or probing them, does not amount to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Expertise does not supersede fairness

Specialist expertise does not displace the requirement that investigations be conducted in accordance with fair procedures and natural justice. Procedural fairness is assessed independently and cannot be justified or diluted by reference to experience, technical knowledge, or investigative discretion.

The CD judgment makes clear that courts will not defer to investigators or regulators on questions of procedural adequacy. Whether a respondent has been afforded fair procedures is generally not a matter of discretion, policy or professional judgment. Rather, it is a legal standard against which a process will be objectively assessed. Where that standard is not met, the resulting decision may be vitiated regardless of the decision‑maker’s confidence in the correctness of the outcome.

Practical takeaways

The implications of CD extend beyond financial regulation. Any organisation conducting internal investigations, particularly where dishonesty, misconduct or reputational damage is alleged, should take note.

Processes that rely exclusively on documents, avoid witness engagement, or treat hearings as optional formalities are increasingly vulnerable to challenge. Investigators should be mindful that:

• The more serious the allegations and consequences, the more demanding the procedural requirements.
• Where credibility, honesty or intent is in issue, written submissions alone are unlikely to suffice.
• They must actively consider gathering witness evidence, particularly where the respondent identifies witnesses as materially relevant.
• Oral hearings may be required in serious or contested cases, even if not expressly mandated by policy or legislation.
• Decision‑makers must engage meaningfully with the individual concerned; perfunctory hearings will not cure procedural defects.
• Expertise and efficiency do not override the need for fairness and natural justice.

Employers and investigators should be cautious in assuming that late‑stage meetings or decision hearings will retrospectively validate an otherwise flawed process. Where earlier failures involve the absence of interviews, the failure to test credibility, or the exclusion of relevant evidence, a perfunctory opportunity to speak will not remedy those defects. It may instead expose the process to challenge.