Bank of Ireland (UK) PLC v Dermot McLaughlin
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Horner J |
| Judgment Date | 14 September 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NIQB 85 |
| Date | 14 September 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2015 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2015] NIQB 85
Q 2
Ref:
HOR9345
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
14/09/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
_______
BETWEEN:
BANK OF IRELAND (UK) PLC
Plaintiff;
-and-
DERMOT McLAUGHLIN
Defendant.
_______
HORNER J
Introduction
[1] The Bank of Ireland (“the Bank”) seeks to recover £123,000 plus interest from
Mr Dermot McLaughlin (“the defendant”) on foot of a deed of Guarantee and
Indemnity (“the Guarantee”) whereby the defendant guaranteed the indebtedness of
Magma Heat Limited (“the Company”) up to the sum of £140,000 on 2 February
2007. The defendant has relied on a number of different grounds to defend this
claim. These include:
(i) The defendant claimed that Mr Patrick Kane had presented forged and
falsified documents designed to hoodwink the court and had given
false testimony. Mr Kane, the Company’s relationship manager with
the Bank, and who dealt with the defendant throughout, had conspired
with the defendant’s brother-in-law, Mr McSwiggan, another Bank
official, to damage the defendant arising out of a dispute about the
ownership of, inter alia, 29 Killymoon Street, Cookstown, and the
remuneration due to Mr McSwiggan’s wife, the defendant’s sister,
Roisin McSwiggan, who was a former director of the Company.
2
(ii) Further the defendant signed a Guarantee relied upon the Bank under
duress from members of the Bank’s staff, and in particular Mr Kane
and Mr McSwiggan, who were trying to ensure that Mr McSwiggan
and his wife acquired the legal and beneficial title of 29 Killymoon
Street, Cookstown.
(iii) I also understand that he calls in aid section 82 of the Consumer Credit
Act 1974 (“the Act”) and perhaps section 87(i)(e). The Bank’s “unfair
relationship” with the Company and/or the defendant is such that it
falls foul of section 140A-D of the Act as amended. He also alleges
other breaches of the Act including breach of sections 86B, C, D and E.
(iv) The defendant claims that money raised on foot of a mortgage in
respect of 29A Killymoon Street (aka Gortalowry Park, Cookstown) in
the sum of £132,108.25 lodged to the Company’s current account was
misappropriated by the Bank as it should have been lodged to reduce
the level of indebtedness due on the Company’s loan account.
(v) Finally the defendant complains that he was insured under a
permanent health insurance policy for £160,000. He was unfit for work
and therefore a claim should have been made under this policy and the
proceeds used to pay off any liability which the Company (or the
defendant) had to the Bank.
[2] The defendant also asked the court to find that the Bank should be found
liable for the loss associated with the collapse of the Company including the loss of
patents and trademarks. This was valued in total by the defendant in the sum of
£2,300,000.00.
[3] The defendant, as a personal litigant, has acquitted himself well. The court
has made due allowance for the fact that he has not had legal training and
consequently has not required a strict or technical adherence to the Rules of Court
and in particular to those relating to pleadings. The defendant has been allowed
latitude in making the case that he has wanted to make and has been permitted to
adduce expert evidence which had not been served on the Bank and in respect of
which there is no expert’s declaration. Further he has been given such time as he
required and an opportunity to inspect the documents on the Bank’s main server.
He has been given considerable scope to adduce such evidence as he thought
necessary to assist him in the defence of his claim and the prosecution of his
counterclaim. This has necessarily prolonged the course of the trial and resulted in
the exploration of several blind alleys.
Mr Stevenson, counsel for the Bank, co-operated fully with the defendant in trying to
ensure that the trial was conducted both fairly and efficiently. His written and oral
submissions were both clear and comprehensive. I have endeavoured to deal with
all the main points made by the plaintiff and especially the defendant in argument. I
To continue reading
Request your trial