The High Court has refused an application by Blue Diamond Sports Limited, trading as Dundalk Bureau de Change, for an interim order requiring Bank of Ireland to continue providing payment services while the company’s action proceeds. The court said the application had to fail; it did not decide whether the bank’s account-closure decision was ultimately lawful or whether the plaintiffs had engaged in money laundering.
The action was brought by two companies based in Dundalk. The first operates a bureau de change, money transmission and money remittance business; the second operates a gaming hall. The bank had notified them in letters dated 5 April 2018 that it intended to withdraw services and close their accounts after two months. The second plaintiff abandoned its application for interim relief when the matter opened. The first plaintiff then sought an order to preserve access to payment account services for its MoneyGram business.
The first plaintiff argued that its accounts were essential and that losing them could force the business to close. It said it had been unable to obtain alternative banking facilities. The bank relied on contractual terms allowing termination on two months’ written notice. It also cited concerns about account activity, while maintaining that it could close the accounts without giving the customer reasons.
Those concerns included substantial cash lodgements, transfers between the two companies’ accounts and a €1 million lodgement linked to a proposed sale for which, the judgment records, no signed contracts or supporting documents had been produced. The judge also considered evidence that some lodgements labelled as MoneyGram transactions were not connected to MoneyGram. He found that the explanations reasonably heightened the bank’s concerns, but did not find that the plaintiffs had engaged in money laundering.
Justice Allen said the central legal question was whether the Payment Services Regulations required the bank to act objectively, without discrimination and proportionately when ending access to payment services. He found that the first plaintiff had not established even a prima facie case that the bank was not entitled to give notice under its contract. Any case it might later make was, in his view, far short of a strong one.
The judge also found that the requested order was unlikely to save the first plaintiff’s overall business. The MoneyGram business accounted for about 10% of its business, and the court had no evidence that preserving those services would prevent closure. He considered any loss relating to that part of the business capable of measurement and compensation through damages.
The application was refused. The ruling concerned interim relief only; the underlying action and the plaintiffs’ claims were not determined by this application.