Sachs v Standard Chartered Bank (Ireland) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-SC 1452
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1987

1986 WJSC-SC 1452

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Hederman J.

McCarthy J.

284/85

SACHS v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (IRELAND) LTD

BETWEEN

LEE SACHS

Plaintiff

and

STANDARD CHARTERED SANK (IRELAND) LTD.

Defendants

and

LINDA MARGARET SACHS

Claimant

Citations:

COLLINS V DOYLE 1982 ILRM 495

COMPANIES ACT 1862 S69

COMPANIES ACT 1908 S278

COMPANIES ACT 1963 S390

CONSTITUTION ART 34.4.3

FUREY V EAGLE STAR & BRITISH DOMINIONS INSURANCE CO 56 ILTR 112

NORTHERN BANK FINANCE V CHARLTON 1979 IR 149

OAKES V LYNCH UNREP SUPREME 27.11.53.

PARKINSON V TRIPLAN LTD 1973 1 QB 609

PEPPARD & CO LTD V BOGOFF 1962 IR 180, 97 ILTR 12

PERRY V STRATHAM 1928 IR 580

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT (IRL) O.58 r18

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT O.58 r15

THALLE V SOARES 1957 IR 182

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Costs

Security - Company - Appeal - Action of plaintiff company dismissed by High Court - Appeal by insolvent plaintiff to Supreme Court - Insolvency attributed to defendant's breach of duty - Defendant's notice of motion for security of costs already incurred in High Court and of costs of appeal - Defendant's motion not served until after service by plaintiff of notice of appeal - Substantial costs already incurred by plaintiff in preparing for appeal - Defendant's motion only relevant to costs of appeal - Arguable grounds of appeal established - Discretion of court - Principles applicable - Defendant's motion dismissed - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962, order 58, r.18 - Companies Act, 1963, s.390 - (266/85 - Supreme Court - 12/5/86) - [1987] ILRM 255

|S.E.E. Co. Ltd. v. Public Lighting Services|

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 18th day of July 1986 by FINLAY C.J. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal by the Plaintiff against the Order of the High Court (Barrington J.) made on the 30th July 1985 in this interpleader issue, giving judgment to the Claimant against the Plaintiff for the sum of £45,307.44.

3 The Plaintiff and Claimant were husband and wife, both of whom were apparently domiciled in England. The wife, in the year 1983, instituted proceedings for a judicial separation in England and was given leave by the Court to convert them, as a procedural matter, into a petition for divorce. She succeeded in obtaining a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii which was made absolute on the 5th October 1984.

4 Subsequently, on the 3rd January 1985, the Claimant applied to the Registrar of the Family Division of the English High Court who, under their procedures, deals with financial matters arising on the dissolution of a marriage and also deals with financial matters arising on an application for judicial separation. On the evidence given before the High Court in this case as to English law, it would appear that the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to maintenance is the same in a case of divorce a vinculo matrimonii and a claim for a judicial separation. As a result of that application the Claimant was granted an Order directing the Plaintiff to pay to her within seven days of that date a lump sum of £35,000 sterling. No other Order for maintenance of a periodic kind was made and all other applications were dismissed.

5 It is this Order and decree of the English Court which the Claimant now seeks to execute in this country. The reason why she seeks to execute it in this country is that it would appear that the Plaintiff who is a person of very considerable substance has avoided by various...