The Supreme Court has set aside the dismissal of a doctor’s claim against Ulster Bank and sent the case back to the High Court for a rehearing. It did not decide whether the bank had promised he was clear of liabilities linked to a property company, or whether it was entitled to take money from his account.
Neil Healy, a registered medical practitioner who ran a general practice in Mullingar, had US$993,983.03 in a deposit account at Ulster Bank’s Mullingar branch in August 2008. The bank applied the money against a debit balance it said was owed under a facility to Coole Property Holdings Ltd. Dr Healy was alleged to have guaranteed that facility, and the bank also alleged a personal liability.
Dr Healy sued, alleging that the bank had unlawfully converted the funds and breached contract, acted negligently and deceitfully. The High Court dismissed his claim in July 2009. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
The dispute centred on a meeting at the bank in August 2007, after Dr Healy had deposited the proceeds of a buyout by his former business partner. Dr Healy and his mother, Maria Healy, said bank employee Alan Leech assured him he was “in the clear with Ulster Bank”. Leech said he did not recall the alleged words and lacked authority to give such an assurance.
The High Court judge accepted that Mrs Healy had attended the meeting and heard the assurance, but did not make a finding about whether her evidence was reliable. The judge rejected Dr Healy’s account of the meeting and dismissed his claim, substantially because of concerns about his credibility.
In the Supreme Court judgment delivered on 21 December 2015, Justice Hardiman said Mrs Healy’s evidence was material to the central issue. The trial judge’s failure to address it was a significant error, the judgment said. The Supreme Court could not assess her reliability in place of the trial judge, who had heard the evidence.
The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter for rehearing. It left unresolved whether any assurance was given, what liabilities it might cover, whether Leech had authority to give it, and issues arising from the bank’s sale of the alleged debt to a third party. The judgment said those matters, along with any question about the parties or pleadings, would fall within the High Court’s remit on rehearing.