Delaney -v- Allied Irish Banks PLC & ors [2016] IECA 5 (28 January 2016)

Delaney -v- Allied Irish Banks PLC & ors [2016] IECA 5 (28 January 2016)

The Court held that no duty of care exists in law requiring a bank to warn a customer about another customer's financial position, that the claims in negligence, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, breach of statutory duty, and deceit were unstateable and bound to fail, and that the High Court was correct to strike out all claims.

Citation
[2016] IECA 5
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Joseph Delaney; Defendant/appellant: Allied Irish Banks PLC.; Defendant/appellant: Declan Taite; Defendant/appellant: Sharon Barrett
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bank's Duty of Care, Banking Confidentiality, Negligence, Constructive Trust, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Statutory Duty, Deceit
Banking Law Tort Law Equity Bank's Duty of Care Banking Confidentiality Negligence Constructive Trust Unjust Enrichment +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Delaney

Plaintiff/respondent

Allied Irish Banks PLC.

Defendant/appellant

Declan Taite

Defendant/appellant

Sharon Barrett

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bank owes a duty of care to a customer to warn about another customer's financial position
  2. 2 Whether a constructive trust arose from assurances given by a bank manager
  3. 3 Whether the bank was unjustly enriched

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that no duty of care exists in law requiring a bank to warn a customer about another customer's financial position, that the claims in negligence, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, breach of statutory duty, and deceit were unstateable and bound to fail, and that the High Court was correct to strike out all claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All claims struck out as unstateable and bound to fail
  • No relief granted to appellant