Kennedy v. Allied Irish Banks plc [1996] IESC 9; [1998] 2 IR 48 (29th October, 1996)

Kennedy v. Allied Irish Banks plc [1996] IESC 9; [1998] 2 IR 48 (29th October, 1996)

No concluded agreement existed for further finance; defendants' obligations were limited to express and implied contractual terms. No breach of contract or tortious duty occurred, and defendants were entitled to act in their own commercial interests. Plaintiffs' claims in contract and tort dismissed.

Citation
[1998] 2 IR 48
Parties
First Named Plaintiff/appellant: Patrick Kennedy; Second Named Plaintiff/appellant: Hugh McGill; Third Named Plaintiff/appellant: Methuen Park Investments Limited; Fourth Named Plaintiff/appellant: Cargagh Construction Limited; Fifth Named Plaintiff/appellant: Towerlough Properties Limited; First Named Defendant/respondent: Allied Irish Banks plc; Second Named Defendant/respondent: AIB Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and order affirmed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Duty of Care, Banker Customer Relationship, Negligence, Guarantees, Facility Letters, Commercial Lending
Contract Law Tort Law Banking Law Breach of Contract Duty of Care Banker Customer Relationship Negligence Guarantees +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Kennedy

First Named Plaintiff/appellant

Hugh McGill

Second Named Plaintiff/appellant

Methuen Park Investments Limited

Third Named Plaintiff/appellant

Cargagh Construction Limited

Fourth Named Plaintiff/appellant

Towerlough Properties Limited

Fifth Named Plaintiff/appellant

Allied Irish Banks plc

First Named Defendant/respondent

AIB Finance Limited

Second Named Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached contract by failing to provide additional finance facilities to the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiffs in the context of banker-customer relationship.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were liable in tort for alleged negligent conduct in performance of contractual obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

No concluded agreement existed for further finance; defendants' obligations were limited to express and implied contractual terms. No breach of contract or tortious duty occurred, and defendants were entitled to act in their own commercial interests. Plaintiffs' claims in contract and tort dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court judgment and order affirmed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
  • Counterclaim by first named defendant allowed