Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in a claim for judgment on foot of unpaid loans, refuses to hold that an alleged concurrent wrongdoer was in any way liable, on the grounds that the defendants had failed to discharge the onus upon them to: (a) provide evidence of the alleged wrongdoing; (b) provide evidence of causation, in the event any wrongdoing existed; and (c) demonstrate sufficient blameworthiness to warrant the alleged concurrent wrongdoer being held liable for 100% of the damages suffered by the plaintiff bank.
Supplemental judgement to previous – Court had invited additional submissions regarding concurrent wrongdoing – onus on defendants to demonstrate concurrent wrongdoing - defendants failed to provide evidence that alleged concurrent wrongdoer committed wrongdoing – in the event that there was wrongdoing, the defendants failed to demonstrate that any such wrongdoing caused the non-repayment of the loan – in the event that there was causation, there is insufficient evidence that the alleged concurrent wrongdoer was sufficiently blameworthy to be held liable for the 100% of the loan alleged by the defendants - no evidence of any contractual liability on the part of the alleged concurrent wrongdoer – defendants have failed to discharge their onus – plaintiffs entitled to final judgement without any deductions.
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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now