Royal Bank of Ireland Ltd v O'Rourke

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1963
Date01 January 1963
CourtSupreme Court
(S.C.)
Royal Bank of Ireland, Ltd.
and
O'Rourke

Claim against defendant as indorser - Cheque drawn on one bank cashed in another - Cheque dishonoured - Notice of dishonour - Whether given within reasonable time -Whether cheque presented for payment within a reasonable time - Time at which cheque presented for payment - Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 92 - Practice - Procedure - Summary summons issued for amount of dishonoured cheque - Averment of notice of dishonour omitted from indorsement of claim - Proceedings discontinued - Fresh summons issued for same claim - Whether res judicata.

The plaintiff bank sued the defendant for the sum of £344 5s. 0d. The claim was brought against the defendant as indorser of a cheque for that amount drawn on the National Bank Ltd., College Green, Dublin, by Shanahan's Stamp Auctions Ltd., in favour of the defendant who cashed it in the Dun Laoghaire branch of the plaintiff Bank. When the cheque was presented for payment by the plaintiffs it was dishonoured by the National Bank Ltd. The plaintiffs brought a summons against the defendant for the amount of the cheque, which summons omitted to aver notice of dishonour of the cheque, and the summons was by consent struck out, the plaintiff Bank paying a measured sum for costs to the defendant. The plaintiff Bank then brought another summons and the defendant pleaded res judicata; the defendant also pleaded that the cheque was not presented for payment by the plaintiff Bank to the National Bank Ltd. within a reasonable time and, accordingly, that the defendant had no liability as indorser of the cheque. By way of further defence the defendant pleaded that notice of dishonour was not given to her in reasonable time by the plaintiff Bank. The cheque, which was dated 15th May, 1959, was cashed by the Dun Laoghaire branch of the plaintiff Bank for defendant on Wednesday, the 20th May, 1959. The defendant was not a customer of the Bank but was identified and then was paid. Following the practice of the Bank the cheques of this branch (as of all other Dublin branches) were brought to the head office of the Bank on the following day. Thursday, the 21st May, 1959, and on the same morning the representative of the plaintiff Bank brought all cheques for clearing (including the cheque the subject-matter of these proceedings) to the central clearing office of the banks in the Bank of Ireland...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bula Holdings and Others v Roche and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 6 May 2008
    ...2 CH 255 DALTON & ORS v FLYNN UNREP LAFFOY 20.5.2004 2004/12/2704 HENDERSON v HENDERSON 1843 3 HARE 100 ROYAL BANK OF IRELAND v O'ROURKE 1962 IR 159 96 ILTR 112 A (A) v MEDICAL COUNCIL & AG 2003 4 IR 302 2004 1 ILRM 372 SUPERWOOD HOLDINGS LTD v SUN ALLIANCE & LONDON INSURANCE PLC 1995 ......
  • Criminal Assets Bureau v Kelly
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 November 2012
    ...constituted injustice - F McK v AF [2002] 1 IR 242; Rowan v Byrne, (Unrep, Barr J, 17/12/1990); Royal Bank of Ireland v O'Rourke [1962] IR 159; Director of Public Prosecutions v Gill [1980] 1 IR 263; Murray v McArdle (Unrep, Morris J, 11/5/1998); The State (Clarke) v Roche [1986] IR 619; CA......
  • Curran and Others v Ulster Bank Ireland DAC and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 August 2023
    ...to be litigated must be identical to the issue decided in the previous proceedings. (See for example Royal Bank of Ireland v. O'Rourke (1962) I.R. 159). The rule in Henderson v. Henderson, on the other hand, applies where a new issue is raised which was not, therefore, decided in the previo......
  • Moffitt v Agricultural Credit Corporation Plc
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 July 2007
    ...to be litigated must be identical to the issue decided in the previous proceedings. (See for example Royal Bank of Ireland v. O'Rourke (1962) I.R. 159). The rule in Henderson v. Henderson, on the other hand, applies where a new issue is raised which was not, therefore, decided in the previo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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