Allied Irish Banks Plc v Cullinane
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Kelly |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IECA 88 |
| Date | 22 April 2015 |
[2015] IECA 88
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Kelly J.
Hogan J
Mahon J.
Between
and
Special Endorsement of Claim – Summary Summons - Court Rules – Appeal against Summary Judgement
Facts:
This case concerned an appeal against summary judgment. The judge who heard the appellant”s application also delivered judgement in Allied Irish Banks plc v. Pierce on the same day. The appellant”s claim was the same as that which was in issue in Allied Irish Banks plc v. Pierce. In both instances the court had to determine whether the special endorsement of claim on the summary summons was defective.
Held by Kelly J:
The court held that the appellant”s case was on all fours with the Pierce case and must be governed by the result in that case. For the same reasons applied in the Pierce case the court allowed the appeal. The special endorsement of claim conformed to the requirements stipulated in the court rules and was not defective.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Kelly delivered on the 22nd day of April 2015.
1. This is an appeal from an order of Binchy J. dated the 24 th November, 2014. On that occasion the judge heard an application for summary judgment which had been transferred to his list by the Master of the High Court as it was a contested case.
2. The judge heard the application on the same day as he dealt with the case of Allied Irish Banks plc v. Eileen Pierce in respect of which judgments have just been delivered.
3. The endorsement of claim in this case is precisely the same in format as that which was in issue in Allied Irish Banks plc v. Pierce. The same firm of solicitors are on record for the plaintiff in both cases.
4. The same objection was taken as to the form of the special endorsement of claim in this case as was done in Pierce's case.
5. The judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he felt that he had to be consistent with what he had held in Pierce's case and accordingly he struck out both the motion and the summons in this case.
6. The appellants appealed the entirety of the decision of Binchy J. In its written submissions, the plaintiff bank made it clear that it was not going to proceed with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial