Danske Bank A/S trading as National Irish Bank -v- Mangan [2018] IESC 17 (08 March 2018)

Danske Bank A/S trading as National Irish Bank -v- Mangan [2018] IESC 17 (08 March 2018)

The amendment to include a claim for unjust enrichment was permissible because it was based on the same facts as originally pleaded in the summary summons, and did not introduce a new cause of action based on new facts. The High Court erred in its approach to the Statute of Limitations issue, but the amendment was not prejudicial as the essential facts were already pleaded. However, any new facts introduced in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the statement of claim must be excised to avoid prejudice.

Citation
[2018] IESC 17
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Danske Bank A/S trading as National Irish Bank; Appellant/defendant: Simon Mangan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Permitting Amendment of Summary Summons
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Statute of Limitations, Unjust Enrichment, Summary Summons, Restitution
Civil Procedure Banking Law Amendment of Pleadings Statute of Limitations Unjust Enrichment Summary Summons Restitution

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danske Bank A/S trading as National Irish Bank

Respondent/plaintiff

Simon Mangan

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Permitting Amendment of Summary Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in permitting amendment of the summary summons to include a claim for unjust enrichment, potentially depriving the defendant of a Statute of Limitations defence
  2. 2 Whether the amendment introduced a new cause of action based on new facts, and if so, whether such amendment should be refused as prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether a summary summons can be amended to include a claim not originally available in summary proceedings after adjournment to plenary hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to include a claim for unjust enrichment was permissible because it was based on the same facts as originally pleaded in the summary summons, and did not introduce a new cause of action based on new facts. The High Court erred in its approach to the Statute of Limitations issue, but the amendment was not prejudicial as the essential facts were already pleaded. However, any new facts introduced in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the statement of claim must be excised to avoid prejudice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment to summary summons permitted subject to excision of offending parts of paragraphs 14 to 16 of the statement of claim.