Pmpa (Carrick) Ltd v Pmps Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy
• Judgment Date: 27 June 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-HC 3936
• Docket Number: 7028P/1992
• Court: High Court
• Date: 27 June 1994

1994 WJSC-HC 3936

THE HIGH COURT

7028P/1992

PMPA (CARRICK) LTD v. PMPS LTD

BETWEEN

PRIVATE MOTORIST PROTECTION ASSOCIATION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) ACTING BY DAVID B DEASY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF PMPA GARAGE (CARICK) LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

PRIVATE MOTORIST PROVIDENT SOCIETY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

EAST CORK FOODS V O'DWYER STEEL 1978 IR 103

MURPHY V AIB 1994 2 ILRM 220

LAW V ROBERTS 1964 IR 306

DEBTORS (IRL) ACT 1840

PHIPPS V BOARDMAN 1967 2 AC 46

Synopsis:

INTEREST

Money

Receipt - Title - Absence - Recipient - Obligation - Restitution - Fiduciary capacity of recipient - Rate of interest payable by recipient - Money received in 1980 - Interest at 10% fixed by court - (1992/7028 P - Murphy J. - 27/6/94)

|Private Motorists Protection Association Ltd. v. Private

Motorists Provident Society Ltd.|

TRUSTS

Creation

Money - Receipt - Title - Absence - Recipient - Unjust enrichment - Obligation - Restitution - Rate of interest payable on money wrongfully received in 1980 - (1992/7028 P - Murphy J. - 27/6/94)

|Private Motorists Protection Association Ltd. v. Private

Motorists Provident Society Ltd.|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Unjust enrichment"

Money - Receipt - Title - Absence - Recipient - Obligation - Restitution - Rate of interest payable on money wrongfully received in 1980 - (1992/7028 P - Murphy J. 27/6/94)

|Private Motorists Protection Association Ltd. v. Private

Motorists Provident Society Ltd.|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy delivered the 27th day of June 1994.

2 This claim concerns the amount of interest (if any) to be allowed to the Plaintiffs on certain substantial sums of money which were paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants on foot of a transaction which it is now admitted was ultra vires the Plaintiffs and void.

3 On the 11th day of September, 1979 the Plaintiffs paid to the Defendants a sum of £250,000 and on the 14th day of March, 1980 an additional sum of £200,000. These are only two of many complex financial transactions which took place between these closely related companies. On the basis of earlier decisions given by me in relation to these cases, it is conceded that the Defendants had no right to receive or retain the said sum of £450,000 and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to restitution thereof. In fact the monies so received by the Defendants were paid into an overdrawn account of the Society with their bankers and in that way and to that extent the monies were dissipated and no longer exist as such and are not traceable into any other asset retained or procured by the Defendants. Accordingly, the issue, which has arisen in so many other matters, as to the right of the paying party to an action in rem and to trace the monies advanced into different assets is wholly inapplicable in the present case. The only issue which divides the parties is whether the Plaintiffs are entitled by way of compensation or restitution to be paid interest on the monies so advanced and if so, at what rate.

4 Various arguments have been put forward on...