The Court of Appeal has dismissed Brendan Flynn’s appeal against a High Court judgment ordering him to pay Bank of Ireland €135,980.91 and dismissing his claims against the Bank and others.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 15 October 2018, the court said it had no basis to overturn the trial judge’s findings. The High Court had made the money order and dismissed Flynn’s plenary proceedings on 12 April 2016, following a three-day hearing in July 2015. The appeal was not a rehearing of the evidence, Peart J said; Flynn had to show there was no credible evidence supporting the trial judge’s conclusions.
Flynn had argued that he accepted a January 2007 loan under duress and undue influence, and alleged that the Bank had acted fraudulently in its dealings with two companies in which he was involved, Eagle Flag Limited and Governetz Commercial Limited. He said the Bank’s handling of disputes over company bank mandates and accounts contributed to the collapse of the businesses and his financial losses. The Bank’s claims concerned a loan consolidating his personal overdraft and liabilities under a company guarantee.
The trial judge rejected Flynn’s account of alleged threats and concluded that he accepted the loan with knowledge and consent. The Court of Appeal said alleged errors about some dates and details did not undermine that conclusion. It also rejected Flynn’s argument that findings made in separate proceedings meant the loan application issue was res judicata, noting the Bank had not been a party to those proceedings.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of Flynn’s allegations of fraud and conspiracy against the Bank. The trial judge had found no evidence that the Bank or its officials joined in fraud, participated in a false criminal complaint, or breached duties to Flynn in handling the company accounts. The appeal court said the Bank’s caution amid a serious dispute between Flynn and Paul Murray was understandable. It also found no basis for directing the Bank to tell the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation that Murray’s complaint against Flynn was untrue.
The court further upheld the finding that Flynn had not established a loss for which he could recover damages. It noted that neither company had brought proceedings over alleged company losses, and that Flynn could not bring a derivative claim for losses suffered primarily by the companies. The court also rejected his contention that the trial was unfair because a UK-based witness did not attend: the trial judge had concluded the proposed evidence concerned undisputed facts, and Flynn had accepted that decision at the time.
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment does not establish findings against Murray or Flynn’s brother Michael Flynn in these proceedings; the claims before the court were against the Bank defendants.