Pyke v Hibernian Bank Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1951
• Date: 01 January 1951
• Court: Supreme Court

(S. C.)

Pyke

and

Hibernian Bank Ltd

Banker and customer - Cheque - Cheque drawn by customer in favour of third party - Customer's account containing funds to meet cheque - Upon Presentation, cheque returned by Bank endorsed "Refer to Drawer"and "Present again" - Action of libel by customer founded upon endorsement - Meaning of expressions, endorsed on cheque - Whether expressions, in ordinary sense, capable of bearing defamatory meaning - Plea of privilege - Interest of Bank to make communication and interest of payee to receive it - Bank's interest created by mistake of Bank as to customer's account -Whether defendants entitled claim occasion of making defamatory communication privileged by reason of interest to make communication created by own mistake.

The plaintiff, who was a private gentleman, had a current account in the defendant Bank. In the months of September and October, 1947, the plaintiff drew upon his account three cheques which were duly presented and returned by the Bank endorsed, in one case, "Refer to Drawer, Present again," and in the other two cases, "Refer to Drawer." The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant Bank claiming damages for breach of contract and libel. In his statement of claim he alleged that the words complained of contained innuendoes against his character, but the trial Judge, on the application of counsel for the defendant Bank, withdrew any question of innuendo from the jury. The jury found that at the time when the cheques were presented the plaintiff had a permitted overdraft and that the amount of the cheques did not overdraw the plaintiff's account by more than the amount of the permitted overdraft; they found for the plaintiff on both of the grounds claimed and at the Judge's direction awarded him £1 damages for breach of contract. On the issue of libel they assessed damages at £400. From this verdict the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (Maguire C.J., Geoghegan, O'Byrne and Black JJ.) being equally divided, the verdict of the High Court was affirmed. Per Maguire C. J.: In the absence of innuendo the words, "Refer to Drawer,"and "Present again," were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and accordingly the learned trial Judge should not have left an issue of libel to the jury. Per O'Byrne J. (with whose judgment Geoghegan J. agreed): The words "Refer to Drawer," and "Present again," written upon a customer's cheque by a bank are reasonably capable of bearing a...