Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v McCaughey [2014] IESC 44 (11 July 2014)

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v McCaughey [2014] IESC 44 (11 July 2014)

The Supreme Court held that, in light of new evidence, there was an arguable case that the New York Hotels Fund was not at an end, so summary judgment should not have been granted for that loan and the matter should be remitted to plenary hearing on the limited ground of whether the loan is due. However, as to the Woolgate loan, there was no arguable basis that the fund was not at an end or that any mis-selling defence or counterclaim could succeed, so summary judgment was properly granted for that loan.

Citation
[2014] IESC 44
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (in special liquidation); Defendant/appellant: Gerard McCaughey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Collateral Contract, Misrepresentation, Counterclaim, Abuse of Process, Statute of Limitations
Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Collateral Contract Misrepresentation Counterclaim Abuse of Process +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (in special liquidation)

Plaintiff/respondent

Gerard McCaughey

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted in respect of certain loans advanced by Anglo to Mr. McCaughey
  2. 2 Whether an arguable defence based on collateral contract, misrepresentation, or estoppel existed
  3. 3 Whether counterclaims for mis-selling were statute barred or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, in light of new evidence, there was an arguable case that the New York Hotels Fund was not at an end, so summary judgment should not have been granted for that loan and the matter should be remitted to plenary hearing on the limited ground of whether the loan is due. However, as to the Woolgate loan, there was no arguable basis that the fund was not at an end or that any mis-selling defence or counterclaim could succeed, so summary judgment was properly granted for that loan.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Remit the New York Hotels loan aspect to plenary hearing on the limited ground of whether the loan is due in light of the alleged collateral contract, representation, or promise; no defence or counterclaim based on mis-selling is permitted for this loan.
  • Dismiss the appeal as to the Woolgate loan; summary judgment for Anglo is affirmed for that aspect.