or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of High Court decision refusing application to dismiss or permanently stay proceedings by reason of the passage of time and the severe ill health of the appellant, a former building society director Building Society, on the grounds that: the inability of the appellant to give instructions to his lawyers, or evidence in court, in relation to a claim that he authorised a series of loans in breach of the duty of care which he owed to the building society, falls short of the threshold required to be met by a defendant who invokes this exceptional jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings in advance of a trial on the merits.
Court of Appeal - application to dismiss or permanently stay the proceedings pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in the interests of justice where, by reason, of the passage of time and the severe ill health of the appellant it is said that there is a real or substantial risk of an unfair trial or an unjust result - claim damages for alleged negligence and breach of his duties as a director of INBS and the return of expenses/expenditure allegedly improperly claimed from the INBS by the appellant during the period 2002 -2009- counter claimed in respect of the failure to provide him with Directors and Officers insurance cover – Central Bank Inquiry stayed due to appellant’s poor health – motion – High Court judgment - developments post the judgment of the High Court – discovery - reduced claim - scope of the claim and the evidence of prejudice in respect of the reduced claim - inherent jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings where, by reason of lapse of time or delay - issues to be determined at trial - defence to these allegations - appellant’s evidence in context of the remaining issues to be determined – will not depend on his personal evidence – whether there is a real and serious risk of an unfair trial or an unjust result - earth of information in relation to the availability of documents applies - no evidence upon which this court can conclude that the documentary evidence in relation to these loans is so incomplete that continuation of these proceedings in the circumstances would amount to a clear, patent unfairness to the appellant such as justified the dismissal of the proceedings - question of whether the authorising of these loans on the terms set out amounted to negligence on the part of the appellant will largely turn on expert testimony – short of the threshold required to be met by a defendant who invokes this exceptional jurisdiction to dismiss proceedings in advance of a trial on the merits – appeal dismissed –
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.