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 (a): grants summary judgment to bank in the sum of €135,980.91 arising out of two credit agreements entered into with the defendant which were in default, where there was insufficient evidence to establish any alleged undue influence or duress the on the bank's part in its dealings with the defendant who was an experienced businessman; and (b): dismisses defendant's claim for damages for alleged conspiratorial and fraudulent banking practices on part of bank officials in its dealings with two companies of which the defendant was involved where there was insufficient evidence to ground the claims being made and where the bank did not breach any fiduciary duty in temporarily restricting access to certain company accounts for a limited period during which there was a commercial dispute as it was at all times acting with care and caution.
Summary judgment - bank's claim for €135,980.91 as money owed on foot of two credit agreements - separate but linked proceedings by debtor against bank seeking damages heard at same time by order of court - bank's claim - alleged undue influence by bank in seeking to conceal alleged wrongs in their dealings with accounts of two companies the defendant had invested in - no evidence of alleged inordinate and inexcusable delay by bank in pursing proceedings furnished to court - no prejudice established or arising - claim not statute barred - debtor an experiences businessman - not subjected to intimidatory threats by bank representatives - bank entitled to recover monies due and owing - defendant's counterclaim seeking damages - bank's acceptance of resolution of board of company in which debtor was involved regarding concerns over bridging finance - false application for a loan facility was not made by bank officials - serious allegations of fraudulent conspiracy regarding the bank's refusal to act on mandate - no evidence of a false criminal complaint made to Garda fraud bureau - bank took neutral stance in bitter dispute between company directors and shareholders - claim for damages for 'criminal libel' misconceived - bank acted with care and caution over company accounts not personal to the plaintiff - no evidence of loss - counterclaim and claims of plaintiff in second proceedings 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.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now