Flanagan v AIB Private Banking & Ors [2020] IECA 57 (28 February 2020)

Flanagan v AIB Private Banking & Ors [2020] IECA 57 (28 February 2020)

The appellant's claims for damages for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of duty, and vicarious liability are not barred by res judicata or the rule in Henderson v Henderson, as the issues were not litigated or decided in the summary proceedings. The trial judge erred in striking out these claims, failing to give appropriate weight to uncontradicted affidavit evidence and misapplying the principles of estoppel and abuse of process.

Citation
[2020] IECA 57
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Peter Flanagan; Defendant/respondent: AIB Private Banking; Defendant/respondent: AIB Mortgage Bank; Defendant/respondent: Allied Irish Banks PLC; Defendant/respondent: AIB Corporate Banking Limited; Defendant/respondent: AIB Finance Limited; Defendant/respondent: AIB Services Limited; Defendant/respondent: Frank Furey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Henderson V Henderson Rule, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Breach of Duty
Civil Procedure Banking Law Contract Law Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Henderson V Henderson Rule Vicarious Liability Negligence +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Flanagan

Plaintiff/appellant

AIB Private Banking

Defendant/respondent

AIB Mortgage Bank

Defendant/respondent

Allied Irish Banks PLC

Defendant/respondent

AIB Corporate Banking Limited

Defendant/respondent

AIB Finance Limited

Defendant/respondent

AIB Services Limited

Defendant/respondent

Frank Furey

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claims are barred by res judicata or the rule in Henderson v Henderson
  2. 2 Whether issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel applies to the appellant's claims
  3. 3 Whether the bank is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Mr. Furey

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claims for damages for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of duty, and vicarious liability are not barred by res judicata or the rule in Henderson v Henderson, as the issues were not litigated or decided in the summary proceedings. The trial judge erred in striking out these claims, failing to give appropriate weight to uncontradicted affidavit evidence and misapplying the principles of estoppel and abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The trial judge's order striking out the appellant's claims for damages for negligence, misrepresentation, breach of duty, and vicarious liability is set aside.
  • The appellant is permitted to proceed with his claims against the bank and Mr. Furey, except for those pleas amounting to a collateral attack on the summary judgment.