Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Loss was not reasonably foreseeable arising from error in bank documentation
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court: (a) dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms decision to dismiss proceedings as frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail, where the claim against a bank arose from an erroneous name of the plaintiff's wife, giving rise to a Revenue investigation, on the grounds that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the error would give rise to loss and damages; and (b) dismisses cross-appeal in relation to costs on the grounds that the failure to award costs against the plaintiff was a reasonable exercise of the High Court's discretion.
Irvine J (nem diss): Claim against bank - dismissal of claim - frivolous, vexatious, no reasonable cause of action - abuse of process - appeal from dismissal of case in High Court - claim for damages for "injury, distress, embarrassment, inconvenience, trauma" - error in bank documentation - Revenue investigation - claim by wife dismissed - claim by husband - similar reliefs sought as in wife's proceedings - principles behind dismissal of claim - whether claim could have been 'saved' by an amendment to the pleadings - argument based on Data Protection legislation not raised at first instance - alleged negligence of bank - claim for defamation - failure to award costs against plaintiffs.
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.
