The Supreme Court has dismissed John Kelly’s appeal against the High Court decision striking out his claims against Allied Irish Banks plc (AIB). It also dismissed the bank’s cross-appeal seeking its costs. The High Court had made no order as to costs, and that order remained in place.
The appeal concerned claims that AIB negligently supplied incorrect information about a joint account to the Revenue Commissioners, defamed Kelly by sending the information, and negligently provided additional loan finance on terms the couple had not agreed. The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 8 July 2019, found that each pleaded claim was bound to fail.
The account was classified as non-resident when it was opened in 1988. Under a 2001 court order, AIB supplied information about qualifying accounts to Revenue. Its notification form listed the second account holder as “Mrs. Jean Kelly” and gave “Mrs. June Kelly” as an alternative name. AIB later acknowledged the naming error and apologised. Revenue wrote to the couple in January 2003 with questions about possible tax liabilities; the judgment records that Revenue closed its investigation in April 2003 after accepting the information provided by the couple.
The Supreme Court accepted, for the purpose of considering the application to dismiss the claim, that a duty of care over the accuracy of information supplied to Revenue might be arguable. It nevertheless concluded that Kelly could not establish foreseeable loss from the naming error or prove actual loss caused by it. The Court also said the form did not state that the account was DIRT-liable and was not capable of suggesting that Kelly was involved in financial impropriety or held a bogus non-resident account.
Kelly’s separate data protection argument was raised on appeal, but was not part of the pleaded claim or argued in the High Court. The Supreme Court declined to consider it as a new cause of action at that stage. The judgment also noted that Kelly disclaimed any claim that the notification error caused a shortfall in withdrawals or pension payments.
On the loan claim, Kelly said monthly repayments had been €555 rather than an agreed maximum of €347.92 for a month or two, before the bank corrected the position and refunded the sums charged. The Court held that he had suffered no compensable loss or injury from this episode.
The bank argued that it should have received its costs after the proceedings were dismissed. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court judge had not explained the no-costs order, but declined to interfere with his discretion, noting in part that the bank had unsuccessfully sought an order restricting further proceedings. Both appeals were dismissed.