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 |
Court of Appeal allows appeal against High Court order dismissing the appellant's damages claims for negligence and misrepresentation against the respondents concerning their management of his loans, on the grounds that: although certain issues potentially relevant to the current plenary proceedings arose or were material to the bank's prior successful summary judgement proceedings against the appellant (and are now not the subject of an appeal by any party), the High Court erred in its application of the rule in Henderson v Henderson, and in its determination of the issue of estoppel, and failed to accord due weight to certain uncontroverted affidavit evidence in dismissing the plenary proceedings against the respondents.
Appeal from High Court order (O'Regan J) dismissing claims against bank parties as res judicata and/or precluded by rule in Henderson v Henderson - negligence claim against certain respondents permitted to continue - prior summary summons proceedings brought by bank against appellant - summary judgement granted against appellant - allegation of duress by bank official determined by High Court in summary judgement proceedings as unsupported by evidence - appointment of receiver - plenary proceedings instituted prior to summary proceedings - bank's motion to dismiss plenary proceedings - abuse of process, collateral attack, res judicata grounds - High Court considered vicarious liability of bank defence of appellant's should have been raised in summary proceedings - issues of independent legal advice, duress/undue influence and conflict of interest found to be res judicata - claim in negligence ordered to remain against bank - notice of appeal - distinction between cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel - rule in Henderson v Henderson - bank's submissions during summary proceedings concerning plenary proceedings' arguments - test as to whether or not issue estoppel arises - same question decided in earlier proceedings - questions of damages for misrepresentation, negligence breach of agreement and breach of duty were not decided in earlier proceedings and are not a collateral attack on legal effect on judgement delivered - policy of re-litigation of identical claims - cause of action estoppel does not defeat appellant's claims in instant case - counsel's submission did not waive any legal defence open to bank in plenary proceedings - trial judge's failure to afford appropriate weight to uncontradicted averments in appellant witness's affidavit - bank failed to discharge burden of proof in motion before High Court - nuanced nature of interplay between issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel - present cause of action in negligence et al framed in a wholly distinct manner - allegation of denial of access to courts unsustainable.
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