The High Court has allowed Irish Bank Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) to introduce an affidavit explaining how the word “Resolution” was omitted from the plaintiff’s name in proceedings against Peter Gaw. The evidence is admitted on a prima facie basis, subject to the defendant’s right to challenge or rebut it.
The ruling by Mr Justice MacGrath, delivered on 26 March 2019, addresses only whether the additional affidavit should be admitted. It does not decide whether the proceedings may be amended to name Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation), and it does not determine the defendant’s separate application to dismiss the claim for delay.
The underlying claim, begun by plenary summons in February 2013, seeks €291,031.33 allegedly paid to Mr Gaw by mistake in connection with the redemption of an Atlantic bond. The bank also claims, among other things, deceit and breach of trust. These are claims in the proceedings, not findings made in this ruling.
The bank says its correct legal name is Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation), and that the word “Resolution” was left out through a clerical error. The defendant disputes that account and says the additional evidence should not be admitted. His solicitor’s evidence included that the bank had repeatedly been referred to by the shorter name in correspondence and that the defendant would be prejudiced by the proposed amendment.
The additional affidavit was sworn by Brian Quigley, the solicitor responsible for the case from its start. He says he was instructed by Anglo Irish Bank plc, that the intended plaintiff was Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited, and that the word “Resolution” was omitted while transferring details from a draft summons prepared for related proceedings. He also says he was never instructed by an entity called Irish Bank Corporation Limited (in special liquidation), which he believes did not exist.
Justice MacGrath considered whether admitting the affidavit would make it harder for the defendant to contest the evidence at this stage, alongside the potential effect on the bank’s case if it could not present the evidence. He was not satisfied that actual or probable prejudice to the defendant had been established. Any potential disadvantage could be addressed by allowing the defendant to introduce rebuttal evidence or test Mr Quigley’s evidence.
The court therefore admitted the affidavit and its exhibits on a preliminary basis, subject to further orders or rulings. It also permitted the defendant to take steps to contest or rebut their contents. The accuracy of the bank’s explanation and the proposed amendment remain for later consideration.