Elliott & Anor v ACC Bank Plc & Ors (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 278 (13 October 2020)

Elliott & Anor v ACC Bank Plc & Ors (Unapproved) [2020] IECA 278 (13 October 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants were statute barred as the cause of action accrued at the latest in 2004, well outside the six-year limitation period. The refusal of discovery and adjournment was upheld as discovery cannot be granted to support an unpleaded allegation of fraud, and the trial judge correctly found that discovery was not necessary for the Statute issue. No prima facie case in negligence was made out against the third defendant on the pleadings or evidence.

Citation
[2020] IECA 278
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Anthony Elliott; Plaintiff/appellant: Anne Elliott; Defendant/respondent: ACC Bank Plc; Defendant/respondent: Patrick Condon; Defendant/respondent: James Halley
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Dismissing Plaintiffs' Case Against Second and Third Defendants and Awarding Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statute of Limitations, Professional Negligence, Discovery, Fraudulent Concealment, Preliminary Issue Procedure
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Tort Law Statute of Limitations Discovery Fraudulent Concealment Preliminary Issue Procedure

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

Parties

Anthony Elliott

Plaintiff/appellant

Anne Elliott

Plaintiff/appellant

ACC Bank Plc

Defendant/respondent

Patrick Condon

Defendant/respondent

James Halley

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Dismissing Plaintiffs' Case Against Second and Third Defendants and Awarding Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants were statute barred under the Statute of Limitations 1957 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing discovery and an adjournment to allow for amendment of pleadings and procurement of expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether a prima facie case in negligence was made out against the third defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs' claims against the second and third defendants were statute barred as the cause of action accrued at the latest in 2004, well outside the six-year limitation period. The refusal of discovery and adjournment was upheld as discovery cannot be granted to support an unpleaded allegation of fraud, and the trial judge correctly found that discovery was not necessary for the Statute issue. No prima facie case in negligence was made out against the third defendant on the pleadings or evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court dismissing the plaintiffs' case against the second and third defendants and awarding costs is affirmed.