Ulster Bank (Ireland) DAC & Ors v McDonagh & Ors (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 322 (23 November 2020)

Ulster Bank (Ireland) DAC & Ors v McDonagh & Ors (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 322 (23 November 2020)

Defendants failed to demonstrate any arguable or bona fide ground of appeal regarding the effect of the CBRE settlement or compliance with the Compromise Agreement; thus, no stay is warranted. Even if arguable grounds existed, the balance of justice favours the bank, as defendants identified no irreparable prejudice and the bank would suffer greater injustice if a stay were granted.

Citation
[2020] IECA 322
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ulster Bank Ireland Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Paul McCann; Plaintiff/respondent: Patrick Dillon; Defendant/appellant: Brian McDonagh; Defendant/appellant: Kenneth McDonagh; Defendant/appellant: Maurice McDonagh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreement, Concurrent Wrongdoers, Stay of Execution, Enforcement of Security, Contributory Negligence
Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Compromise Agreement Concurrent Wrongdoers Stay of Execution Enforcement of Security Contributory Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ulster Bank Ireland Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Paul McCann

Plaintiff/respondent

Patrick Dillon

Plaintiff/respondent

Brian McDonagh

Defendant/appellant

Kenneth McDonagh

Defendant/appellant

Maurice McDonagh

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants have an arguable ground of appeal to justify a stay on the High Court's order
  2. 2 Whether settlement with a concurrent wrongdoer (CBRE) under s.17(2) Civil Liability Act 1961 extinguishes defendants' liability
  3. 3 Whether defendants breached the Compromise Agreement with the bank

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to demonstrate any arguable or bona fide ground of appeal regarding the effect of the CBRE settlement or compliance with the Compromise Agreement; thus, no stay is warranted. Even if arguable grounds existed, the balance of justice favours the bank, as defendants identified no irreparable prejudice and the bank would suffer greater injustice if a stay were granted.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • Refuse the reliefs sought by the defendants/appellants for a stay on the High Court's order.