Fannon v O'Brien & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 301 (28 April 2021)

Fannon v O'Brien & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 301 (28 April 2021)

Ulster Bank Ireland DAC failed to demonstrate that Mr Fannon’s claims are bound to fail, as factual disputes exist regarding the alleged repayment agreement and the legal effect of s. 28(6) of the Judicature Act is not sufficiently clear to warrant summary dismissal. The claims are not suitable for striking out at this stage.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 301
Parties
Plaintiff: Eoin Fannon; Defendant: Tom O’Brien; Defendant: Promontoria (Oyster) DAC; Defendant: Ulster Bank Ireland DAC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Out Claims / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to strike out plaintiff's claims against Ulster Bank Ireland DAC refused
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Defamation, Trespass, Statute of Limitations, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Assignment of Debt Breach of Contract Negligence Defamation Trespass +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eoin Fannon

Plaintiff

Tom O’Brien

Defendant

Promontoria (Oyster) DAC

Defendant

Ulster Bank Ireland DAC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike Out Claims / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against Ulster Bank Ireland DAC disclose a reasonable cause of action and are bound to fail
  2. 2 Whether s. 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 bars claims against the assignor after assignment
  3. 3 Whether factual disputes regarding existence of repayment agreement preclude striking out

Ratio Decidendi

Ulster Bank Ireland DAC failed to demonstrate that Mr Fannon’s claims are bound to fail, as factual disputes exist regarding the alleged repayment agreement and the legal effect of s. 28(6) of the Judicature Act is not sufficiently clear to warrant summary dismissal. The claims are not suitable for striking out at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out plaintiff's claims against Ulster Bank Ireland DAC refused

Orders

  • Parties to correspond and strive for agreement on issues arising from judgment, including costs; in event of disagreement, written submissions to be delivered within 14 days for adjudication.