KBC Bank v BCM Hanby Wallace [2013] IESC 32 (25 June 2013)

KBC Bank v BCM Hanby Wallace [2013] IESC 32 (25 June 2013)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the bank's alleged negligence as merely a causa sine qua non and not considering whether it was a proximate cause of the loss. The High Court should have determined whether the bank's acts amounted to contributory negligence and, if so, apportioned responsibility. Since this was not done, the case must be remitted to the High Court for determination of contributory negligence and apportionment, if appropriate.

Citation
[2013] IESC 32
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: KBC Bank Ireland plc; Defendant/appellant: BCM Hanby Wallace (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and remitted to the High Court for determination of contributory negligence and apportionment of damages, if any.
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Damages, Causation, Breach of Contract
Banking Law Professional Negligence Tort Law Contributory Negligence Solicitor's Duty of Care Damages Causation Breach of Contract

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

Parties

KBC Bank Ireland plc

Plaintiff/respondent

BCM Hanby Wallace (A Firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank was guilty of contributory negligence under s.34 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 in relation to losses suffered due to the solicitor's failure to obtain security for loans.
  2. 2 Whether the proximate cause of the bank's loss was the solicitor's negligence or the bank's own lack of care in lending.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the defence of contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the bank's alleged negligence as merely a causa sine qua non and not considering whether it was a proximate cause of the loss. The High Court should have determined whether the bank's acts amounted to contributory negligence and, if so, apportioned responsibility. Since this was not done, the case must be remitted to the High Court for determination of contributory negligence and apportionment, if appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and remitted to the High Court for determination of contributory negligence and apportionment of damages, if any.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the High Court to determine whether there should be a finding of contributory negligence and, if so, to apportion responsibility.
  • Clarification that no finding of intentional dishonesty or fraud was made against individual partners or officers of the appellant firm.