Defender Ltd v HSBC France (Approved) [2020] IESC 37_1 (03 July 2020)

Defender Ltd v HSBC France (Approved) [2020] IESC 37_1 (03 July 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that Defender’s claim was fully defeated by s. 17(2) CLA. The correct interpretation of s. 17(2) requires a hypothetical apportionment of liability between BLMIS and HSBCITS. Unless it is clear that BLMIS would have been liable to contribute 100% (i.e., HSBCITS 0%), Defender’s claim cannot be entirely defeated at a preliminary stage. The possibility of apportionment other than 100%/0% means the action should proceed. The settlement with the BLMIS trustee did not automatically discharge HSBCITS, and the reduction of Defender’s claim must be determined by the court’s assessment of relative fault, not by the settlement alone.

Citation
[2020] IESC 37_1
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Defender Limited; Defendant/respondent: HSBC France (formerly HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited); Third Party: Reliance Management (BVI) Limited; Third Party: Reliance International Research LLC; Third Party: Fiman Limited; Third Party: David Whitehead
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision overturned; matter remitted for further determination.
Legal Topics
Concurrent Wrongdoers, Contribution and Indemnity, Settlement Agreements, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Fraud, Civil Liability Act 1961
Tort Law Contract Law Bankruptcy Law Concurrent Wrongdoers Contribution and Indemnity Settlement Agreements Vicarious Liability Negligence +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defender Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

HSBC France (formerly HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited)

Defendant/respondent

Reliance Management (BVI) Limited

Third Party

Reliance International Research LLC

Third Party

Fiman Limited

Third Party

David Whitehead

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of ss. 16 and 17 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 regarding satisfaction, release, and identification of concurrent wrongdoers
  2. 2 Whether HSBCITS and BLMIS are concurrent wrongdoers vis-à-vis Defender
  3. 3 Extent of reduction of Defender’s claim under s. 17(2) CLA

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that Defender’s claim was fully defeated by s. 17(2) CLA. The correct interpretation of s. 17(2) requires a hypothetical apportionment of liability between BLMIS and HSBCITS. Unless it is clear that BLMIS would have been liable to contribute 100% (i.e., HSBCITS 0%), Defender’s claim cannot be entirely defeated at a preliminary stage. The possibility of apportionment other than 100%/0% means the action should proceed. The settlement with the BLMIS trustee did not automatically discharge HSBCITS, and the reduction of Defender’s claim must be determined by the court’s assessment of relative fault, not by the settlement alone.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision overturned; matter remitted for further determination.

Orders

  • High Court judgment on s. 17(2) set aside
  • Proceedings to continue for determination of apportionment of liability and quantum