The High Court has dismissed an investor’s claim against Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation), finding that his delay in advancing the case was inordinate and inexcusable and that the balance of justice favoured ending the proceedings.
The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 26 June 2018. The application before her was the defendant bank’s motion to dismiss the action for delay. The court did not determine the underlying allegations about the investment.
The plaintiff’s claim arose from an agreement made in or about December 2006 to invest in a fund promoted by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited, together with an associated loan. He repaid the loan in early 2008. In a plenary summons issued on 13 December 2012, he sought a declaration that the contract was void or, alternatively, rescission and repayment. He also claimed damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement.
After the proceedings were automatically stayed in February 2013, the plaintiff obtained an order lifting the stay in November that year. He served the summons on 11 December 2013. The bank entered an appearance and requested a statement of claim in March 2014, but none was delivered until 11 October 2017, five days after the bank issued its dismissal motion.
The plaintiff said he had waited for the outcome of other litigation involving different funds promoted by Anglo Irish Bank, believing it could strengthen his position and make settlement more likely. He also cited the need for legal advice and an expert report. The judge found that he had chosen unilaterally to wait, without notifying the bank or securing its agreement. She concluded that the explanations did not excuse the delay.
In considering the balance of justice, the judge noted that the pleaded case involved conversations and alleged representations in 2006, requiring oral evidence and credibility assessments. She found the bank had established prejudice from the substantial passage of time, even without identifying a particular unavailable witness. She also found the bank had not delayed unduly in bringing its motion.
The court dismissed the action. The judgment records no decision on whether the investment-related allegations were true.