Whelan & Ors -v- Allied Irish Banks Plc & Ors [2011] IEHC 544 (08 December 2011)

Whelan & Ors -v- Allied Irish Banks Plc & Ors [2011] IEHC 544 (08 December 2011)

The court found that the loan facility was not non-recourse; there was no evidence that AIB or the solicitors were ever informed of a non-recourse requirement, nor was such a term included in the facility letter. The plaintiffs' belief was based on misunderstanding and not on any actionable misrepresentation or negligence by the defendants. The claims for indemnity and damages failed.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 544
Parties
Plaintiffs: Judith Whelan, Therese Lynch, Philip Lynch, Eileen Lynch, Phillipa Lynch, Paul Lynch; Defendant: Allied Irish Banks Plc.; Defendant: Matheson Ormsby Prentice, solicitors; Defendant: LK Shields, solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Recourse, Negligent Misrepresentation, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Personal Liability on Loans
Contract Law Banking Law Professional Negligence Loan Recourse Negligent Misrepresentation Solicitor's Duty of Care Personal Liability on Loans

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Whelan, Therese Lynch, Philip Lynch, Eileen Lynch, Phillipa Lynch, Paul Lynch

Plaintiffs

Allied Irish Banks Plc.

Defendant

Matheson Ormsby Prentice, solicitors

Defendant

LK Shields, solicitors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the AIB loan facility was non-recourse or full recourse to the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether AIB, MOP, or LKS made negligent misrepresentations or were negligent in their advice or conduct
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to indemnities from the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the loan facility was not non-recourse; there was no evidence that AIB or the solicitors were ever informed of a non-recourse requirement, nor was such a term included in the facility letter. The plaintiffs' belief was based on misunderstanding and not on any actionable misrepresentation or negligence by the defendants. The claims for indemnity and damages failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed against all defendants
  • No indemnity or damages awarded to plaintiffs