Roche -v- Wymes [2017] IESC 57 (21 July 2017)

Roche -v- Wymes [2017] IESC 57 (21 July 2017)

The respondent was entitled to a contribution from the appellant as co-guarantor because he paid more than his rateable share of the common debt, the claim was not statute-barred as the right to contribution accrued at the date of payment, and the settlements were not improvident or made without legal error. The trial judge's findings of fact were supported by credible evidence and not open to appellate interference.

Citation
[2017] IESC 57
Parties
Respondent: Thomas J. Roche; Appellant: Michael Wymes
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contribution Between Co Guarantors, Statute of Limitations, Suretyship, Enforcement of Guarantees, Equitable Remedies
Equity Banking Law Contract Law Contribution Between Co Guarantors Statute of Limitations Suretyship Enforcement of Guarantees Equitable Remedies

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas J. Roche

Respondent

Michael Wymes

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to a contribution from the appellant as co-guarantor after settling with the banks
  2. 2 Whether the claim for contribution was statute-barred
  3. 3 Whether the settlements were improvident or made without proper consultation

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was entitled to a contribution from the appellant as co-guarantor because he paid more than his rateable share of the common debt, the claim was not statute-barred as the right to contribution accrued at the date of payment, and the settlements were not improvident or made without legal error. The trial judge's findings of fact were supported by credible evidence and not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order affirmed
  • Appellant to pay rateable contribution as determined by High Court