Kinlan v Ulster Bank, Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date26 July 1928
Date26 July 1928
Docket Number(1926. No. 460.)
CourtSupreme Court (Irish Free State)
S. C.,
Kinlan
and
Ulster Bank, Ltd.

Wrongful refusal by bank to pay customer's cheques - Cheques payable to customer himself - Action for breach of contract - Measure of damages - Special damage.

Plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, a bank, alleging that they had money standing to the credit of his current account, and that he had suffered damage by the defendants' breaches of contract in not paying out of his moneys in their hands applicable to that purpose four cheques drawn by him and duly presented for payment on four different dates. He claimed £200 special damage for loss and damage sustained in rescinding a contract to purchase certain premises from the defendants. All the four cheques were drawn payable to the plaintiff himself. The main defences pleaded were that the money lodged by the plaintiff with the defendants was not applicable to the payment of cheques drawn by the plaintiff, being lodged in connection with a proposed mortgage of the premises which the plaintiff had contracted to purchase from them; that three of the cheques alleged to have been presented for payment were not in fact presented, and that, as regards the fourth cheque, no damage was suffered by the plaintiff by reason of its non-payment; that at most the plaintiff was entitled to nominal damages, and as to the whole action they paid into Court £10 as sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiff's claim. At the trial of the action the jury found that the four cheques were presented for payment; that at the time of presentation there was a sum of money standing to the plaintiff's credit; that that money was lodged by the plaintiff to his current account, and so accepted by the defendants; that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants whereby the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Carey v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 August 2003
    ...ASSOCIATION 1916 33 TLR 77 FOX-BOURNE V VERNON & CO 1894 10 TLR 647 CHAMBERLAIN V BENNETT 1892 8 TLR 234 KINLEN V ULSTER BANK LTD 1928 IR 171 BREEN V COOPER IR 3 CL 621 HAMLIN V GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY 1 H&N 8 MALIK V BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (BCCI ) 1998 AC 20 1997 3 AER 1 ......
  • Royal Bank of Ireland Ltd v O'Rourke
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1963
  • Great One Coconut Products Industries (M) Sdn Bhd v Malayan Banking Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1985
  • Klopper v Volkskas Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...dealing with this type of claim, such as Marzetti v Williams, 1 B. & Ad. 415; Rolin v Steward, 14 C.B. 595; Kinlan v Ulster Bank, Ltd., 1928 I.R. 171; Addis v Gramophone Co. Ltd., 1909 A.C. 488 at p. 495; Wilson v United Counties Bank, 1920 A.C. 102; Gibbons v Westminster Bank, Ltd., (1939)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Bank Account Operation
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Bank and Customer Law in Canada
    • 8 September 2007
    ...(K.B.). 136 Above note 132. 137 Above note 134. 138 Bank of New South Wales v. Milvain , above note 134; Kinlan v. Ulster Bank Ltd ., [1928] I.R. 171 (S.C.). 139 Baker v. Australia & New Zealand Bank Ltd ., [1958] N.Z.L.R. 907 (S.C.). 140 Pyke v. Hibernian Bank Ltd ., [1950] I.R. 195 (H.C.)......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Bank and Customer Law in Canada. Second Edition
    • 19 June 2013
    ...236 Kingsnorth Trust Ltd. v. Bell, [1986] 1 All E.R. 423 (C.A.) ............................... 209 Kinlan v. Ulster Bank Ltd., [1928] I.R. 171 (S.C.) .............................................. 287 Kirch v. Royal Bank of Canada (1993), [1994] 2 W.W.R. 194, 114 Sask. R. 205, [1993] S.J. ......
  • Quantification of Contractual Damages: Have we moved on from Fuller and Perdue?
    • Ireland
    • Hibernian Law Journal No. 13-2014, January 2014
    • 1 January 2014
    ...Ltd [1912] A.C. 673; Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch. 106; Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1995] 3 All E.R. 268; Kinlan v Ulster Bank [1928] I.R. 171. 01 BunburyN.indd 25 29/05/2014 10:49 26 alan bunbury Nicholls also dismissed the concern that an undesirable level of uncertainty would result......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT