The High Court has rejected claims by Ann Condon against Allied Irish Banks (AIB), Bank of Ireland and two employees over losses she said arose from her joint purchase and operation of a Cork pub. The court found that liability had not been established and did not proceed to assess the amount of any losses.
Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh’s judgment concerned the Anchor Bar, bought and run by Ms Condon and Kieran Ashcroft from 1999. Ms Condon alleged that Mr Ashcroft defrauded her and that the banks were responsible through their employees or their own conduct. Mr Ashcroft, a former AIB employee, was not located after a Garda investigation and does not appear to have been served in these proceedings. No criminal trial took place. The judge stressed that the civil case had to be decided on the evidence before her, without presuming that fraud had occurred.
The trial dealt with liability only. The judge found that Bank of Ireland employee Michael Carroll’s role was limited: he introduced Ms Condon to Mr Ashcroft and had no particular involvement in buying or running the pub. Even if Mr Carroll had made a positive reference, the judge found no reason he would then have had to doubt Mr Ashcroft’s honesty. The court therefore found no basis for Ms Condon’s negligent misstatement claim against Mr Carroll or the bank.
The judge also rejected the argument that AIB knew, or should have suspected, that Mr Ashcroft was misappropriating customers’ money. Two earlier internal matters involved large cash withdrawals without required paperwork and a failure to complete a customer’s share-sale instructions. The court found neither showed suspicion of fraud by Mr Ashcroft.
Ms Condon’s claims included two cheques connected with the sale of her earlier pub, Isaac Bells; a £150,000 loan for Anchor Bar renovations; the pub’s takings; cheques from the Dublin Rovers company account; and the value of her claimed half-share in the pub. The judge found that the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that she had suffered the alleged losses on the cheque, renovation-loan and company-cheque claims. On the takings claim, the judge said that even if Mr Ashcroft had taken cash before it reached a bank, the banks could not be held liable on the case presented. The alleged loss of the pub share was attributed primarily to Ms Condon’s decision to walk away without taking steps to realise its value.
The court also rejected her claim for damages for mental injury, finding that the requirements for such damages had not been established. Its decision was limited to liability: the judge did not determine the amount of any loss. As liability against the first, third and fourth defendants was not established, there was no further stage to quantify losses.