Sparebanken Nord - Norge v Beirne, Forde, Crimson, Northern Bank Ltd, National Irish Bank Ltd, Midland Bank Plc

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR. JUSTICE MORRIS
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1992
• Neutral Citation: 1998 WJSC-HC 12360
• Court: High Court
• Date: 12 May 1992

1998 WJSC-HC 12360

THE HIGH COURT

1986/7395P

SPAREBANKEN NORD - NORGE v. BEIRNE, FORDE, CRIMSON, NORTHERN BANK LTD, NATIONAL IRISH BANK LTD, MIDLAND BANK PLC

SPAREBANKEN NORD-NORGE:

plaintiff

JAMES FRANCIS BEIRNE, THOMAS A. FORDE, JOSEPH GRIMSON, NORTHERN BANK LTD, NATIONAL IRISH BANK LTD, MIDLAND BANK PLC:

Defendants

Citations:

STAMP ACT 1891 S14(4)

FINANCE ACT 1970 S41(3)

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 S28(1)

FINANCE ACT 1970 S41(6)

STAMP ACT 1891 S32

STAMP ACT 1891 S33

STAMP ACT 1891 S33(1)

O COINDEALBHAIN (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) V GANNON 1986 IR 154

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 S55(2)

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 S89(1)

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882 PART 4

HAMILTON FINANCE CO LTD V COVERLEY WESTRAY WALBAUM & TOSETTI LTD 1969 1 LLOYDS REP 53

Words & Phrases:

C

Subject Headings:

*

1 ACTION HEARD BEFORE MR. JUSTICE MORRIS IN DUBLIN ON MAY 12, 1992, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON MAY 20, 1992:

2 I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes in the above-named proceedings.

3 Telephone: 722833

4 After Hours: 2862097

5 Fax: 724486

COPYRIGHT

6 Transcripts are the work of the shorthand writer and they may not be photo-copied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to respondent or to any other party without written permission of the shorthand writer.

7 THE HEARING WAS RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON MAY 20, 1992 : MR. JUSTICE MORRIS DELIVERED JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS

8 objection has been taken by the remaining Defendants in this action to the admission in evidence of a document stated to be a promissory note on the grounds that it has not been stamped. The grounds for the objection are contained in section 14 (14) of the Stamp Act, 1891, which provides:- "(4) Save as aforesaid, an instrument executed in any part of the state, or relating, wheresoever executed, to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done in any part of the state, shall not, except in criminal proceedings, be given in evidence, or be available for any purpose whatever, unless it is duly stamped in accordance with the law in force at the time when it was first executed.". And section 41(1) of the Finance Act, 1970, which provides: "(3) Every person who issues, endorses, transfers, negotiates, presents for payment, or pays any bill of exchange or promissory note liable to duty and not being duly stamped shall incur a fine of £10, and the person who takes or receive from any other person any such bill or note either in payment or as a security or by purchase or otherwise, shall not be entitled to recover thereon, or to make the same available for any purpose whatever"

9 The objection is taken at a stage of the case where not all the circumstances in which document came into existences have been fully proved. However, counsel for the Defendants has based his objection on the facts which have been referred to in the opening of the case and in the pleadings and in the particulars which have been delivered and has argued that on the assumption that these facts are established in evidence, than the unstamped promissory note is not be received by the court in evidence. In the circumstances, it becomes necessary to state shortly the Plaintiff's assertion of the way in which the document came into existence.

10 In March of 1986 a firm of the fish exporters in Norway (Alvestad) were in the process of negotiating the sale of a quantity of stock fish to one James Beirne and the purchase price was to be paid by means of a promissory note to be signed by James Beirne whereby he would promise to pay USS7090, 000 to Alvestad's bank account in their Norwegian Bank, who are the Plaintiffs in these proceedings, they having discounted and given value for the promissory note. Alvestad were at all stages dissatisfied with a more promise be supported by a reputable bank. On the basis that such support was forthcoming from the Northern Bank Limited, and that this arrangement would be put in place, a representative of Alvestad travelled to Ireland on the 18th of March, 1986, for the purpose of obtaining this promissory note. He attended at the Northern Bank's premises in Carrick-on-Shannon and there a Mr. Eugene Keaveney, their Manager at that branch, for and on behalf of the Northern Bank, signed the document in question in the stated capacity of endorser and, it is alleged, thereby bound the bank to pay the amount of the note. It is alleged by Counsel for the Plaintiff that they became so responsible as "quasi endorser" or as an accommodation party, "for the purpose of lending their name" to the note as provided for by section 28(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 or in the further alternative as a stranger under section 56 of the Act.

11 The note having been thus signed by Mr. Keaveney, it was taken to London where, it is alleged, Mr. James Beirne signed it.

12 The argument made by the Plaintiff is that the note was accordingly made in England and is, therefore, not subject to the provisions which require stamping by virtue of section 41(6) of the Finance Act, 1970.This provides "(6) The duty chargeable under the Stamp Act, 1891, on a bill of exchange or promissory note drawn outside the state and specified under that heading in the First Schedule to that Act shall cause to be chargeable on and from the 1st day of February of 1971".

13 The arguments advanced by the Defendants to support the assertion that Section 41(6) of the Finance Act 1970does not apply can, I believe, be summarised as follows. It is argued that in the determination of this issue, one must look not to the definitions of promissory note and bill of exchange contained in the Bill of Exchange Act, 1882, but...