Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank -v- Coleman [2009] IESC 38 (05 May 2009)

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank -v- Coleman [2009] IESC 38 (05 May 2009)

The Supreme Court held that while the solicitor was in serious breach of his undertaking, the appropriate remedy under the court's inherent jurisdiction is discretionary and should be limited to actual loss suffered by the bank as a result of the breach, not the full sum advanced. The case was remitted to the High Court to assess and award such losses, if any.

Citation
[2009] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank; Defendant/respondent: Daniel Coleman (practising under the style of 'Coleman & Company')
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (special Summons) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relief
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to High Court for assessment of losses (if any) to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction Over Solicitors, Solicitor's Undertakings, Compensation for Breach of Undertaking, Discretionary Remedies, Mortgage Transactions
Legal Profession Banking Law Equity Inherent Jurisdiction Over Solicitors Solicitor's Undertakings Compensation for Breach of Undertaking Discretionary Remedies Mortgage Transactions

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank

Plaintiff/appellant

Daniel Coleman (practising under the style of 'Coleman & Company')

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (special Summons) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order a solicitor to compensate a bank for breach of a solicitor's undertaking under the court's inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 What is the appropriate measure of compensation for breach of a solicitor's undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while the solicitor was in serious breach of his undertaking, the appropriate remedy under the court's inherent jurisdiction is discretionary and should be limited to actual loss suffered by the bank as a result of the breach, not the full sum advanced. The case was remitted to the High Court to assess and award such losses, if any.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to High Court for assessment of losses (if any) to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Remit to High Court to assess losses (if any) suffered by the bank as a result of the solicitor's breach of undertaking.
  • Order that such losses as are assessed (if any) be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.