High Court, in proceedings where the plaintiff bank seeks judgment jointly and severally against three brothers, finds that: (a) the version of events offered by the defendants is illogical and lacking credibility, and that they do owe the debt claimed by the bank; but (b) having previously settled with another alleged concurrent wrongdoer (CBRE), the bank’s claim against the defendants is to be reduced by the amount by which CBRE would have been liable to contribute to the damage suffered by the bank if there had been a contribution between CBRE and the defendants. The court therefore invites the parties to seek to agree the appropriate final amount between themselves in light of the court's ruling.
Plaintiff banks seeks judgement against Defendants – two issues to be resolved – factual disputes regarding Compromise Agreements – legal interpretation of S17.2 of Civil Liability Act 1961 – factual disputes settled, defendants provided inconsistent and unreliable evidence and forged documentation – had done so in previous cases which went to their credibility – one defendant had constructed an elaborate front to hide his involvement – bank had previously settled proceedings with another party regarding valuation of site – Defendants claim this release them as they are concurrent wrongdoers as per S17 – Plaintiff disagrees - both parties incorrect as to legal interpretation of S17.2 – Court’s interpretation is the Plaintiff’s case is reduced by amount other party would have been liable to contribute to the damage if there has been a contribution between the party and the Defendants – parties invited to come to accord on this amount.