The High Court has ordered the title of proceedings brought against Peter Gaw to be amended, replacing “Irish Bank Corporation Limited (In Special Liquidation)” with “Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (In Special Liquidation)”. Mr Justice MacGrath found that the omission of “Resolution” arose through the process of writing down the plaintiff’s name and was a clerical error.
The judgment, delivered on 7 May 2019, dealt with the plaintiff’s application to correct the name in the proceedings. It was the second judgment in the case; the court said it should be read with its decision of 26 March 2019. The plaintiff had sought an order under the Rules of the Superior Courts, arguing that the word “Resolution” had been left out by mistake.
In March, the court allowed an affidavit from the plaintiff’s solicitor, Brian Quigley, and its exhibits to be admitted on a prima facie basis. The defendant was given the right to reply. In an affidavit, the defendant’s solicitor, Mr Sherry, disputed that the plaintiff had shown a clerical error. He argued that the proceedings’ title had been used repeatedly, that several people had been involved in drafting the summons, and that the evidence did not establish when the omission occurred. He also cited a 2013 letter stating that his client had no knowledge of the plaintiff named in the proceedings.
At the resumed hearing on 11 April, counsel for the defendant relied on earlier decisions distinguishing clerical mistakes from errors caused by lack of knowledge, mistaken belief or wrong information. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the affidavits and earlier correspondence supported the claim that the name had been written down incorrectly, and that the evidence showed this was more likely than not.
The judge said the evidence indicated that “Irish Bank Corporation Limited (In Special Liquidation)” was an unknown entity. He distinguished the case from one where proceedings had originally named a different existing entity, and concluded that this error did not arise from mistaken belief or wrong information. He found that it originated in instructions to counsel and went unnoticed until the proceedings were well underway.
In the interests of justice, the court ordered the plaintiff’s name in the proceedings’ title to be amended. The judgment does not state any other order or determine the underlying dispute between the parties.