Wildgust & anor. -v- The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland & anor. [2006] IESC 19 (22 March 2006)

Wildgust & anor. -v- The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland & anor. [2006] IESC 19 (22 March 2006)

The Supreme Court held that a duty of care for negligent misstatement can arise even where the plaintiff did not personally rely on the misstatement, provided the defendant knew or ought to have known that the statement would be relied on by an intermediary whose actions would affect the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was within the class of persons foreseeably affected. The relationship between the insurer, the assignee bank, and the insured was sufficiently proximate, and it was just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. The trial judge erred in requiring actual reliance by the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order dismissing the claim was set aside.

Citation
[2006] IESC 19
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Harold Wildgust; Appellant/plaintiff: Carrickowen Limited; Defendant (original, Later Struck Out): The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Respondent/second Named Defendant: Norwich Union Life Insurance Society
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Reliance, Special Relationship, Assignment of Insurance Policy, Contractual Obligations
Tort Law Contract Law Insurance Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Economic Loss Reliance Special Relationship +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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold Wildgust

Appellant/plaintiff

Carrickowen Limited

Appellant/plaintiff

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

Defendant (original, Later Struck Out)

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society

Respondent/second Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a duty of care for negligent misstatement arises where the claimant did not personally rely on the misstatement but suffered loss as a result of an intermediary's reliance.
  2. 2 Whether the law of negligent misstatement requires actual reliance by the plaintiff for liability to arise.
  3. 3 Whether it is just, fair, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant insurer in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a duty of care for negligent misstatement can arise even where the plaintiff did not personally rely on the misstatement, provided the defendant knew or ought to have known that the statement would be relied on by an intermediary whose actions would affect the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was within the class of persons foreseeably affected. The relationship between the insurer, the assignee bank, and the insured was sufficiently proximate, and it was just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. The trial judge erred in requiring actual reliance by the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order dismissing the claim was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The High Court order dismissing the action is set aside.