McCann v Halpin

Last updated
McCann v Halpin [2016] IESC 11
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameMcCann v Halpin
Decided11th of March 2016
Citation(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S11.html
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Case opinions
The High Court judge ruled that the phrase "close of business" meant 4 p.m. and that IBRC shut down every day at 4 p.m. The court also agreed that the receiver had to wait a while before they could carry out their task, dismissing the appellants' appeal against the Possession Order.
Court membership
Judges sittingLaffoy J., Dunne J., Charleton J.
Case opinions
Decision byJustice Laffoy
Keywords
Constitution

McCann v Halpin [2016] IESC 11, [1] [2] is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision concerning the close of business hours. [3] It was decided that 10am to 4pm means "close of business." [4] It was also decided that the rule of construction does not apply because there is no uncertainty. This case, defined the close of business hours and made it clear that the rule of construction should be used in letters of demands or contracts. [4] [5] [6]

Contents

Background

Before the receiver was chosen, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) sent a letter of demand that said payment could be made through an electronic transfer or a bank draft to the right bank account. [7] The letter of demand said:

If payment is not made by the end of business on February 17, 2012, we reserve the right to enforce any security given to us to secure the facilities made available under the Offer Letters, to take all actions allowed by the said security (including, but not limited to, appointing a receiver), and to take any other steps we are legally allowed to take to recover all money owed to us. [4] [8]

The deed of appointment of the receiver was on February 17, 2012, at 4 p.m. [5] [4]

High Court

In the High Court, the receiver said that the person who had borrowed the money never seemed likely to be able to pay it back. This included meeting with the people who had borrowed the money earlier in the day and making it clear that they could not  pay it back.  However, the borrower said that the letter of demand was only extended until 4 p.m., which was not when the business day for this company ended. This means that the wrong person was put in charge. The ruling High Court judge said that when the relationship between the bank and the customer was set up, the meaning of the term "close of business" was not left open to interpretation, and that the borrower in this case was in the wrong. [9] "Close of business" in this case meant that the bank was closed. From 10 am to 4 pm, the bank was open. In his statement about this issue, the judge said that the term "close of business" should be taken to mean the end of the business day for banks. The judge also said that expert evidence is not needed to know that banks are usually open from 10 am to 4 pm. If money needs to be at the bank by the end of the day, that could mean no later than 4 p.m. [4] [5]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The borrower's only ground to appeal was based on whether or not the receiver was legitimately appointed to the case. [10] The first thing the borrowers said was that "close of business" had to do with bank hours and that a bank was always open from 10 to 4. It was also argued  that since the letter of demand said the money was due at the end of business, it wasn't due at or before the time that was thought to be the end of business. This meant that the receiver couldn't be chosen until after 4 p.m. Lawyers for the appellants also said that, according to contra proferentem [11] rules of construction, the letter of demand should be interpreted against the person who received it if it wasn't clear what it said. [4] [5]

The court decided that the phrase "close of business" was used correctly and meant 4 o'clock. They said that the borrowers couldn't disagree with this issue by referencing a law. So, the court took the phrase to mean what the receiver meant it to mean. People also thought that IBRC shut down every day at 4 p.m. and that all of their customers knew this. Since the appellant used this business, it made sense for the court to think this was what both sides agreed to.  The court agreed with the appellant that, since the receiver in this case said they would be appointed when the account closed, they couldn't act right away after the account closed and had to wait a while before they could carry out their task. [5] [4]

As the court already dismissed the Appellants' appeal against the order made in the Section 316 proceedings and found that the Receiver was validly [12] appointed as Receiver over Elektron Holdings Limited's assets, it was decided that this appeal against the Possession Order was dismissed. [5]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Denis O'Brien</span> Irish billionaire businessman

Denis O'Brien is an Irish billionaire businessman, and the founder and owner of Digicel. He was listed among the World's Top 200 Billionaires in 2015 and was Ireland's richest native-born citizen for a period of several years. His business interests have also extended to aircraft leasing, utilities support (Actavo), petroleum, football, and healthcare. As former chairman of the Esat Digifone consortium, O'Brien was questioned by the Moriarty Tribunal, which investigated the awarding of a mobile phone licence to Esat, among other things.

John Ignatius Quinn, commonly known as Seán Quinn, is an Irish businessman and conglomerateur. In 2008 he was the richest person in the Republic of Ireland, but in 2012 he was declared bankrupt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Palles</span>

Christopher Palles was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer, Vincent Thomas Hyginus Delany, described 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.

<i>DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets LBC</i>

DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1976] 1 WLR 852 is a UK company law case where, on the basis that a company should be compensated for loss of its business under a compulsory acquisition order, a group was recognised as a single economic entity. It stands as a liberal example of when UK courts may lift the veil of incorporation of a company.

<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>Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

<i>Nottinghamshire County Council v B</i> 2011 Irish Supreme Court case

Nottinghamshire County Council v B[2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

<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>J. McD v P.L and B.M</i> Irish Supreme Court case

J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological father, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<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>Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<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>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.

<i>Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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. The court also considered the remedies available where a solicitor is in breach of a solicitor's undertaking.

<i>Hickey v McGowan & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Hickey v McGowan & ors, [2017] IESC 6 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case concerns child abuse and vicarious liability. The second defendant sexually abused the plaintiff in class, in the presence of the other students. This happened at least once a week. Four boys who witnessed the abuse in the class gave evidence, which was accepted by the High Court. It was determined that there must be a "close connection" between the wrongful act and the actions that one had engaged the offender to perform in order for one to be made liable for the act of another.

<i>Permanent TSB Plc v. Langan and Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Permanent TSB Plc v. Langan and Anor, [2017] IESC 71; [2018] 1 I.R. 375, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. The Court allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal. It was found that the Circuit Court had the authority to conduct possession proceedings in this case.

<i>OFarrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Farrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison, [2016] IESC 37, [2016] 3 IR 619 is a reported Irish Supreme Court decision. The Court, split four-three dismissed an appeal from the State over the release of three dissident prisoners. According to Section 9 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995, the Court ruled that it did not have the right to increase the prison sentences of three people who had been sent from England to Ireland to finish their sentences. This case is important as it showed a flaw in the way the Irish prison system carried out prison sentences handed down by courts in other countries. This led to the early release of a number of prisoners.

<i>Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A. [2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out.

<i>Quinn -v- Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (In Special Liquidation) & ors</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Quinn -v- Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd & ors [2015] IESC 29, [2016] 1 IR 1 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. This case involved businessman Sean Quinn and his Family in their dealings with Anglo Irish Bank. This important decision was about whether or not a contract is automatically unenforceable if it is illegal.

References

  1. ↑ McCann -v- Halpin & anor [2016] IESC 11, 11 March 2016, retrieved 2023-02-13
  2. ↑ "McCann v Halpin". vLex. Retrieved 2023-02-15.
  3. ↑ "LK Shields Solicitors LLP | is-it-closing-time-on-close-of-business | publication | news-insights". www.lkshields.ie. Retrieved 2023-02-15.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Supreme Court considers the phrase 'Close of Business' in the context of a Receiver Appointment | Mar - 2016 | A&L Goodbody". www.algoodbody.com. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "McCann -v- Halpin & anor [2016] IESC 12 (11 March 2016)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  6. ↑ Wade, Gordon (2017). "When is 'close of business'". Irish Law Times. 35(3): 41–44 – via Westlaw.
  7. ↑ "What time is 'close of business'? | Beauchamps". beauchamps.ie. Retrieved 2023-02-13.
  8. ↑ "The Bar Review June 2016 by Th!nk Media - Issuu". issuu.com. Retrieved 2023-02-13.
  9. ↑ Courts Service, Ireland. "Court Book of Authorities in Respect of Applications to Which Practice Direction HC97 Applies". Courts Service Ireland.
  10. ↑ ""Close of Business" – regularly included in business documents, but is its meaning evident?". Fieldfisher. Retrieved 2023-02-13.
  11. ↑ "Practical Law UK Signon". signon.thomsonreuters.com. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  12. ↑ "Receiver validly appointed after Supreme Court interprets "close of business" as being 4pm". Irish Legal News. Retrieved 2023-02-15.
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.