Keane & Anor v Ulster Bank Designated Activity Company (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 293 (04 December 2024)

Keane & Anor v Ulster Bank Designated Activity Company (Unapproved) [2024] IECA 293 (04 December 2024)

The plaintiffs' claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail as a matter of law. The Bank owed no duty to prosecute proceedings against the plaintiffs' former solicitors for the plaintiffs' benefit. No representation or estoppel arose from the Bank's actions. The claim for unjust enrichment was untenable as the Bank's commercial sale of the loan did not enrich it at the plaintiffs' expense. The Bank and the plaintiffs' solicitor were not concurrent wrongdoers under the Civil Liability Act, 1961 as the claims did not relate to the same damage. The proceedings were an abuse of process and properly struck out.

Citation
[2024] IECA 293
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Donal Keane and Frederique Keane; Defendant/respondent: Ulster Bank Ireland Designated Activity Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings as Abuse of Process
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Negligence, Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, Concurrent Wrongdoers, Mortgage Enforcement
Civil Procedure Banking Law Property Law Abuse of Process Negligence Estoppel Unjust Enrichment Concurrent Wrongdoers +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donal Keane and Frederique Keane

Plaintiffs/appellants

Ulster Bank Ireland Designated Activity Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' proceedings against the Bank disclose a reasonable cause of action or are bound to fail
  2. 2 Whether the Bank owed a duty to prosecute professional negligence proceedings against the plaintiffs' former solicitors for the plaintiffs' benefit
  3. 3 Whether the Bank made a representation or created an estoppel by issuing proceedings against the solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were bound to fail as a matter of law. The Bank owed no duty to prosecute proceedings against the plaintiffs' former solicitors for the plaintiffs' benefit. No representation or estoppel arose from the Bank's actions. The claim for unjust enrichment was untenable as the Bank's commercial sale of the loan did not enrich it at the plaintiffs' expense. The Bank and the plaintiffs' solicitor were not concurrent wrongdoers under the Civil Liability Act, 1961 as the claims did not relate to the same damage. The proceedings were an abuse of process and properly struck out.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process
  • Costs to the respondent