The Supreme Court dismissed Simon Mangan’s appeal over an amendment allowing Danske Bank A/S, trading as National Irish Bank, to pursue an unjust enrichment claim. The Court made that outcome conditional: the Bank must remove the challenged parts of paragraphs 14 to 16 of its statement of claim.
The appeal concerned a High Court order of 28 November 2011, which permitted the Bank to amend its summary summons. The Bank’s proceedings began in July 2009, seeking €62,600 after a cheque for that amount, lodged by Mr Mangan for collection, was dishonoured. The case had been adjourned for plenary hearing after the Supreme Court set aside an earlier High Court judgment for the Bank.
The Bank’s statement of claim, delivered in December 2009, included a claim for money had and received as restitution for unjust enrichment. Mr Mangan argued that allowing the amendment would deprive him of a limitation defence because the claim was based on new facts pleaded after the relevant period. He also argued that the Bank had chosen the summary procedure and should not be allowed to add the claim later.
The Bank submitted that the unjust enrichment claim could be supported by the facts already pleaded: the cheque was lodged to a company account, dishonoured, and funds were used to obtain a bank draft. It said the later transaction details were unnecessary to establish the claim.
Justice Dunne found that the High Court had applied the wrong test when it left the limitation issue for trial. An amendment takes effect as if it had been part of the summons from the date proceedings began, so a new claim based on new facts could prejudice a defendant by removing a limitation defence. But the Court concluded that the original pleaded facts could support the unjust enrichment claim as a repayment claim based on a payment made under a mistake of fact.
The Court regarded the later transaction details in paragraphs 14 to 16 as unnecessary to that claim. The Bank had accepted it did not need to rely on them. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal, subject to the Bank excising the challenged portions of those paragraphs. It also rejected the argument that a summary summons could not be amended after the case had been adjourned for plenary hearing.