Midland Bank Ltd v Crossley-Cooke

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Ó Dálaigh C.J.
• Judgment Date: 25 July 1969
• Neutral Citation: 1965 WJSC-SC 5105
• Docket Number: (45-1968),[1967. No. 855.]
• Date: 25 July 1969

1965 WJSC-SC 5105

THE SUPREME COURT

Ó Dálaigh C.J.

Walsh J.

Budd J.

(45-1968)

Midland Bank Ltd v. Crossley-Cooke

MIDLAND BANK LTD

v.

D. CROSSLEY - COOKE

1 Judgment delivered on the 25th day of July, 1969 by Ó Dálaigh C.J. An Príomh-Bhreitheamh [nem diss]

2 This appeal is against an order of Murnaghan J., dated 26th February, 1968 entering judgment for the plaintiff bank against the defendant in the sum of £45,595. 5. 2d. and costs.

3 The plaintiff's claim, endorsed on a Summary Summons, was in respect of money paid by the plaintiffs for the defendant, at his request, and for interest thereon, and for money due on an account stated and settled.

4 The summons was issued on 13th July, 1967, the defendant's address being given as Cappaghmore, Clondalkin, Co. Dublin. As many as half-dozen unsuccessful attempts were made to serve the defendant at this address, and in these circumstances the plaintiff sought and obtained from Butler J., on 6th September, 1967 an order for substituted service on one David Blanford of the same address.

5 The affidavit grounding the application for that order exhibits a copy of letter written by the plaintiff's solicitor and addressed to the defendant at Cappaghmore informing the defendant of plaintiff's solicitor's instructions and requiring him to state a time when he would be available to accept service of the proceedings. A reply exhibited came from the aforesaid David Blanford who signed himself "head man" stating that the defendant was away and the writer could not be sure that a document left would reach him.

6 The summons was duly served on Blanford and it appears it was in fact posted on by Blanford to the defendant in England. It may be noted that Mr. Blanford did not dissociate himself from the defendant nor say that he had not been at Cappaghmore. The inference is rather the contrary.

7 The defendant, through his London solicitors, instructed Dublin solicitor, Mr. Stanley Siev, to enter an appearances to the proceedings and to defend the proceedings on the basis that the Irish courts had no jurisdiction. Mr. Siev entered an unqualified appearance, and enquired what his client's grounds were for challenging the jurisdiction of the Irish courts and in particular, enquiring during what periods his client was resident in the jurisdiction of the Irish courts. The answer to this was that prior to March, 1966 he had made rare visits to Ireland to stay with friends and since then that the frequency of his visits to Ireland had increased. The London agents in their letter added: "He tells us that he cannot be said to be...