Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman

Last updated

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided5 May 2009
Case history
Appealed fromBank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman [2006] IEHC 337
Appealed toBank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman [2009] IESC 38
Case opinions
The court retains inherent disciplinary jurisdiction over its officers. While the jurisdiction is compensatory rather than punitive, it still retains a disciplinary aspect.
Court membership
Judges sittingGeoghegan J, Fennelly J, Finlay J
Case opinions
Decision byGeoghegan J.
ConcurrenceFennelly J. Finnegan J
Keywords

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman [2009] IESC 38; [2009] 2 ILRM 363; [2009] 3 IR 699 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the inherent jurisdiction of the court with respect of a solicitor's misconduct. [1] [2] [3] The court also considered the remedies available where a solicitor is in breach of a solicitor's undertaking. [4] [5]

Contents

Background

The Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank ("Bank of Ireland") (the appellant in the appeal) brought a case in the High Court against Mr Coleman (the respondent in the appeal), a solicitor. [1] The basis of Bank of Ireland's claim was that Mr Coleman had given a solicitor's undertaking (a commitment to do or not to do something) not to release €250,500 advanced by Bank of Ireland to Mr Coleman (acting as solicitor for a borrower) until Mr Coleman had ensured that the borrower would obtain good marketable title to the relevant property and that Bank of Ireland would have first legal charge over the property. [1] In breach of this undertaking, Mr Coleman released the money without having received a "duly executed mortgage by the borrower in favour of the Bank of Ireland over the property being purchased by the borrower". [1] Following default on the loan by the borrower, Bank of Ireland sought compensation for Mr Coleman's breach by requesting that the High Court exercise its "inherent jurisdiction ... over solicitors as its officers" [1] by ordering Mr Coleman to repay the full €250,500, plus interest. [4] Mr Coleman argued that it "was not a claim for debt nor a claim for damages for breach of contract nor a claim for conversion or money had and received or indeed for compensation or damages for breach of trust or breach of an agency agreement" [1] and that any remedy that might be ordered was, therefore, discretionary.

In the High Court, Laffoy J concluded that Mr Coleman's obligation was to ensure that Bank of Ireland had proper security over the mortgaged property, something that Mr Coleman had failed to do. If it were impossible to comply with Mr Coleman's "ultimate obligation", [1] then the correct amount of compensation should relate to the value of the security that Bank of Ireland should have obtained, not simply the amount of the loan. [1] [5] The High Court judge went on to note, however, that it was still possible for Mr Coleman to comply with the "ultimate obligation”. [1] As a result, she dismissed Bank of Ireland's claim. [1] Bank of Ireland appealed.

Holding of the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, Geoghegan J provided the only written judgment, with which Fennelly J and Finnegan J concurred.

The Supreme Court largely agreed with the reasoning of Laffoy J in the High Court. [6] The Supreme Court confirmed the position as outlined in IPLG Limited v Stuart [7] that courts retain an inherent disciplinary jurisdiction over its officers. [1] Geoghegan J noted the

“clear affirmation that the inherent jurisdiction of the court in respect of solicitors' misconduct still existed in Ireland notwithstanding that the Solicitors Act 1960 did not provide that solicitors were officers of the court but created the well known procedures of hearings by a disciplinary committee of the Law Society followed by hearings by the President of the High Court.” [1]

Geoghegan J also referred to the statement of Bowen LJ in Re Grey [8] that, “[I]f the jurisdiction of the court still exists, then it seems to me that, the matter being one of discretion, no hard and fast rules can be laid down whereby such discretion would be fettered”. [8]

The court went on to note that when deciding upon the solicitor's undertaking, the overall outcome should be taken into account rather than singular aspects of the undertaking. [1] The Supreme Court agreed with Laffoy J in the High Court in that it would be inappropriate to order Mr Coleman to repay €250,500 with or without interest when the Bank by its own negligence had "provided loan facilities on an overvaluation of the property." [1]

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with Laffoy J's finding that, if it was still possible for the respondent to complete the undertaking, compensation should not be awarded. [1] [5] The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction is not merely supervisory. "While the jurisdiction is compensatory rather than punitive, it still retains a disciplinary aspect." [5] [1] Since the High Court hearing, Bank of Ireland's security interest had been correctly put in place. Despite this, "there was a serious and inexcusable breach of the defendant's obligations not just in relation to the payment but in relation to the undertaking as a whole" [1] and losses had been suffered. Therefore the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and remitted back to the High Court where the scale of Bank of Ireland's losses could be assessed. [1]

See also

Mortgage loan

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman

Related Research Articles

The army deafness claims were a series of personal injury claims taken from 1992 to 2002 against the Irish Department of Defence by members of the Irish Defence Forces for noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to loud noise during military operations and training. The claims stated that the government had failed to provide adequate ear protectors during firing exercises, as was required under regulations dating back to the 1950s. About 16,500 claims were made, resulting in payouts totalling about €300m.

The Family Home Protection Act of 1976 is an Act of the Oireachtas which regulates an aspect of property law in Ireland and prevents the sale, partial sale, mortgage or re-mortgage of a property which is defined as a family home under the terms of the Act without the knowledge and consent of both spouses therein residing. A family home under the terms of the Act is a dwelling which is the ordinary residence of a married couple. The effect of the act is that, although the property may be in the registered ownership of one spouse only, this spouse cannot carry out transactions concerning the property — which could lead to the loss of the family home — without the other spouse's knowledge and consent.

Christopher Palles

Christopher Palles, was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer V.T.H. Delany describes him as "the greatest of the Irish judges". He served as the last Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from 1874 until his retirement from the bench in 1916.

Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew [1996] EWCA Civ 533 is a leading English fiduciary law and professional negligence case, concerning a solicitor's duty of care and skill, and the nature of fiduciary duties. The case is globally cited for its definition of a fiduciary and the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship arises.

<i>Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny</i> 2016 Irish Supreme Court case

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny, [2016] IESC 9, [2016] 2 IR 283 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court confirmed the Irish courts’ jurisdiction to strike out (dismiss) weak cases—those it considered “bound to fail."

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Gilroy v Flynn</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gilroy v Flynn [2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the Court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2002] 2 IR 305; [2002] IESC 27; [2002] 2 ILRM 241, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that fair procedure imposes a duty on the prosecution to seek out and preserve all evidence that has a bearing or a potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence.

<i>Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>PM v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

PM v Director of Public Prosecutions[2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. This case determined that prosecutorial delay that deprives an accused of these rights is, in and of itself, one factor to consider in carrying out the balancing exercise.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<i>Collins v Minister for Finance</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Collins v Minister for Finance[2016] IESC 73; [2017] 1 ILRM 65; [2017] 3 IR 99, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which it was held that the Minister for Finance did not breach his power in issuing promissory notes under the Credit Institutions Act 2008, which was found to be constitutional. Collins' appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which concluded that, “a Minister for Finance can spend any amount of money they deem necessary in an emergency without going back to the Dáil and we will be challenging that in the Dáil itself.” The case thus legalised emergency measure to deal with Ireland's financial crisis. This was a case in which "the matters described" were of "national importance."

<i>Director of Corporate Enforcement v Barry Seymour</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Director of Corporate Enforcement v Barry Seymour[2011] IESC 45; [2013] 1 IR 82, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that commercial misjudgement was not in itself sufficient to justify disqualification as a company director under the Companies Act 1990.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A.M.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IESC 65, [2015] 1 I.L.R.M. 170 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that s.18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister for Justice to evaluate the financial burden that a refugee's dependents may put on the State, whilst determining an application for entry.

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman [2009] IESC 38; [2009] 2 ILRM 363; [2009] 3 IR 699
  2. ↑ Carolan, Mary (6 May 2009). "Solicitor to compensate bank for release of €250,500". The Irish Times. Retrieved 10 April 2020.
  3. ↑ Thomas Bebenek v The Minister for Justice and Equality and Ireland and The Attorney General and The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána [2019] IEHC 154
  4. 1 2 de Londras, Fiona (2009). "Land Law, Landlord and Tenant Law and Conveyancing". Annual Review of Irish Law. 23 (1): 560–578 – via Westlaw.ie.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Donnelly, Mary (2009). "Solicitors' undertakings—Failure to comply with terms—Possibility of completion—Compensation for breach". Commercial Law Practitioner. 16 (6): 127 – via Westlaw.ie.
  6. ↑ Maguire, Roderick (2009). "Breach of solicitor's undertaking—Inherent jurisdiction of High Court—Discretion to make appropriate order". Commercial Law Practitioner. 16 (9): 210–212 – via Westlaw.ie.
  7. ↑ [1992] IEHC 372
  8. 1 2 Re Grey [1892] 2 Q.B. 440
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.