Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd (IOM) & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 298 (12 December 2024)

Nolan & Ors v Dildar Ltd (IOM) & Ors (Approved) [2024] IECA 298 (12 December 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions on admissibility and objection under the 2020 Act, exercised his discretion lawfully in excluding the documents in the interests of justice, and made credibility findings supported by the evidence. No manifest error or injustice was shown to warrant appellate intervention.

Citation
[2024] IECA 298
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ann Nolan; Plaintiff/appellant: Elizabeth Nolan; Plaintiff/appellant: Joan Nolan; Plaintiff/appellant: Richard Nolan; Plaintiff/appellant: Patricia Nolan; Plaintiff/appellant: Sally Nolan; Plaintiff/appellant: Quest Capital Trustees Limited; Defendant/respondent: Dildar Limited (IOM); Defendant/respondent: Ciaran Desmond; Defendant/respondent: Colm S McGuide; Defendant/respondent: Derval M O'Halloran (formerly McGuide Desmond Solicitors); Defendant/respondent: John Millett; Defendant/respondent: Pinnacle Pensioner Trustees Limited; Defendant/respondent: Dildar Limited; Defendant/respondent: John Millett Independent Financial Advisors Limited; Defendant/respondent: Dillon Kenny; Defendant/respondent: Darren Kenny; Defendant/respondent: Paul Kenny; Third Party: Stephen Declan Murphy; Third Party: Edel Murphy; Third Party: Kevin Joseph McMahon; Third Party: John Lynch; Third Party: EFG Bank AG; Third Party: BNP Paribas Wealth Management; Third Party: United Overseas Bank Limited; Third Party: Allied Finance Trust AG
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil, Commercial) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Business Records, Tracing Remedies, Fiduciary Duties, Fraud and Deceit, Data Protection, Discretion of Trial Judge
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Trusts and Pensions Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Business Records Tracing Remedies Fiduciary Duties +3 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann Nolan

Plaintiff/appellant

Elizabeth Nolan

Plaintiff/appellant

Joan Nolan

Plaintiff/appellant

Richard Nolan

Plaintiff/appellant

Patricia Nolan

Plaintiff/appellant

Sally Nolan

Plaintiff/appellant

Quest Capital Trustees Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Dildar Limited (IOM)

Defendant/respondent

Ciaran Desmond

Defendant/respondent

Colm S McGuide

Defendant/respondent

Derval M O'Halloran (formerly McGuide Desmond Solicitors)

Defendant/respondent

John Millett

Defendant/respondent

Pinnacle Pensioner Trustees Limited

Defendant/respondent

Dildar Limited

Defendant/respondent

John Millett Independent Financial Advisors Limited

Defendant/respondent

Dillon Kenny

Defendant/respondent

Darren Kenny

Defendant/respondent

Paul Kenny

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Declan Murphy

Third Party

Edel Murphy

Third Party

Kevin Joseph McMahon

Third Party

John Lynch

Third Party

EFG Bank AG

Third Party

BNP Paribas Wealth Management

Third Party

United Overseas Bank Limited

Third Party

Allied Finance Trust AG

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil, Commercial) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting or excluding certain documents under the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's findings on witness credibility and factual issues should be overturned
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing tracing remedies and claims against the Millett respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions on admissibility and objection under the 2020 Act, exercised his discretion lawfully in excluding the documents in the interests of justice, and made credibility findings supported by the evidence. No manifest error or injustice was shown to warrant appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • No order disturbing the High Court's directions regarding funds in court