Charles Kelly Ltd. v Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd. [2020] IECA 8 (29 January 2020)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Costello delivered on the 29th day of January 2020

1. This is an appeal against the Order of Reynolds J. of 8 March 2019 that the plaintiff

provide security for the costs of the defendants in the amount of €220,000, and a stay on

the proceedings until the security for the costs awarded had been provided ([2019] IEHC 120).

2. On 19 August 2015 the plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendant seeking a

declaration that the defendant had acted without proper authority in dealing with the

plaintiff’s banking facilities and that it had “failed to action” the plaintiff’s proper

instructions in relation to its banking business, and sought damages for the loss said to be

caused by the defendant’s negligence, breach of duty and/or breach of statutory duty

and/or breach of fiduciary duty and/or pursuant to s.44 of the Central Bank (Supervision

and Enforcement) Act 2013. A statement of claim was delivered on 30 July 2017 and a

3. On 15 February 2018 the defendant issued a motion pursuant to O. 29, r.1 of the Rules of

the Superior Courts, and/or s.52 of the Companies Act 2014, seeking orders directing the

plaintiff to furnish security for costs to be incurred by the defendant in defending the

proceedings, and ancillary relief. There was an exchange of affidavits between the parties

on 25 April 2018, 15 January 2019 and 16 January 2019. The motion was heard on 16

and 17 January 2019 and the trial judge delivered judgment on 13 February 2019. As

stated above, she ordered the plaintiff to provide security for the costs of the defendant in

4. The plaintiff appealed the order on the grounds that the trial judge erred in holding that

the defendant had established a prima facie defence, that the plaintiff would be unable to

pay the costs of the defendant if it were successful in its defence and in fixing security for

costs at 100% of the estimated costs of the defendant in meeting the case.

“Where a company is plaintiff in any action or other legal proceeding, any judge

having jurisdiction in the matter, may, if it appears by credible testimony that there

is reason to believe that the company will be unable to pay the costs of the

defendant if successful in his or her defence, require security to be given for those

costs and may stay all proceedings until the security is given.”

6. The formulation of the test which the court must apply when considering an application

under the section was set out by Clarke J. in Usk District Residents Association Limited v.

The Environmental Protection Agency [2006] 1 ILRM 363 in the following terms:-

“1. In order to succeed in obtaining security for costs an initial onus rests upon the

(a) that he has a prima facie defence to the plaintiff's claim, and

(b) that the plaintiff will not be able to pay the moving party's costs if the moving

2. In the event that the above two facts are established then security ought to be

required unless it can be shown that there are specific circumstances in the case

which ought to cause the court to exercise its discretion not to make the order

sought. In this regard the onus rests upon the party resisting the order.

The most common examples of such special circumstances include cases where a

plaintiff's inability to discharge the defendant’s costs of successfully defending the

action concerned flow from the wrong allegedly committed by the moving party or

where there has been delay by the moving party in seeking the order sought.”

7. The parties were agreed that this was the appropriate test to be applied and this passage

8. First it is necessary, therefore, to consider the claim and the nature of the defendant’s

defence to that claim. The requirement is for a defendant to establish that it has a prima

facie defence to the claim advanced. What constitutes a prima facie defence is considered

9. The claim had its genesis in previous litigation concerning the joint shareholders and

directors of the plaintiff, Mr. Gerard Kelly and Mr. William Kelly. In 2008, Mr. Gerard Kelly

petitioned for, and was granted, orders against Mr. William Kelly under s. 205 of the

Companies Act 1963 on the basis that he had made out a case of oppression against Mr.

William Kelly. One of the issues in dispute was whether Mr. William Kelly had been

expending money from the plaintiff’s accounts that was not for the benefit of the

company. Ultimately, Laffoy J. held that four payments from the account constituted the

10. The plaintiff’s claim in these proceedings is that the defendant was on notice of an alleged

misappropriation of funds and of ongoing litigation between the two principals of the

plaintiff. It pleads that the defendant wrongly honoured four payments which it knew, or

ought to have known, were not being made for the benefit of the plaintiff and which had

not been properly authorised by the plaintiff . The four disputed payments were to Gibson

These were the four payments which Laffoy J. found constituted a misappropriation of

company funds. It also pleaded that the defendant proceeded to continue to operate an

unsanctioned overdraft facility of €2.5 million without legal authority and to the detriment

of the plaintiff. It sued for declaratory relief and damages arising out of these alleged

11. In its defence the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff’s claim was statute barred and that

a claim in relation to the overdraft of €2.5 million was, in essence, a claim of reckless

lending and a cause of action not known to the law. The substantive defence amounted to

a traverse of the statement of claim and put the plaintiff on proof of the matters as set

out. In relation to the plea that four payments were wrongfully honoured by the

defendant, and were not properly authorised by the plaintiff, the defendant merely denied

that it wrongfully honoured the payment requests, whether in the manner pleaded at

para. 18 of the statement of claim or at all. It advanced no positive plea by way of

defence, whether based on the mandate, or contract, or otherwise. At para. 28 of the

defence, it pleads that if the plaintiff had suffered the alleged, or any, loss or damage

then same had been caused wholly and exclusively, or in the alternative contributed to,

by the negligence on the part of the plaintiff, its servants or agents. In particularising the

alleged negligence on the part of the plaintiff, it asserted that the plaintiff failed, refused

and neglected to take such steps as would be necessary to vary the account mandate of

12. In 2009, the senior manager of the defendant dealing with the account of the plaintiff was

Mr. Niall Kavanagh. Mr. Kavanagh did not swear the affidavit grounding the defendant’s

motion seeking security for costs. This was sworn by Mr. Ted Mahon who is also a senior

manager employed by the defendant. His means of knowledge in relation to the events

the subject of the proceedings, and in particular of the motion, was based exclusively

upon the books and records of the defendant and not from any personal involvement in

the affairs of the plaintiff at the relevant time. Mr. Mahon set out the defence of the

defendant to the allegation that it wrongfully honoured payments drawn on the account of

the plaintiff which had not been validly submitted in paras. 37 to 41 of his affidavit. He

referred to the mandate of the account of the plaintiff dated 29 September 2006 which

provided that most transactions on the current account of the plaintiff, including the

presentation of cheques for sums up to €250,000, could be completed provided there

were two signatories on behalf of the plaintiff. He averred that the defendant accepted

that the plaintiff submitted “a request” on 15 September 2009 “to the effect that the

Defendant should not make any further payments to Gibson & Associates.” He then

averred, by reference to a letter dated 21 May 2014, that “the Defendant clearly and

repeatedly advised the Plaintiff that for such a restriction to be imposed, a board

resolution from the [plaintiff] (sic) would be required.” He then exhibited correspondence

between 15 September 2009 and 3 November 2009. Paragraph 40 of his affidavit says:-

“As is apparent therefrom, the Plaintiff was clearly advised by the Defendant that,

in the absence of a board resolution, the account mandate dated 29 September

2006 would continue to have effect as between the parties. Subsequent to this

correspondence, the Defendant honoured the payments to Gibson & Associates in

the manner which it was contractually obliged to do. In this regard, each of the

documents on foot of which the aforesaid payments were made was duly executed

This suggests a defence based upon an alleged contractual obligation of the defendant to

operate the plaintiff’s account in accordance with the mandate, but it does not elaborate

upon the basis for this assertion in light of the correspondence which immediately

preceded the first of the four disputed payments where a contrary approach was taken.

Nor does Mr. Mahon engage in any meaningful way with the correspondence he exhibits

and, in particular, the repeated assertions by the defendant in that correspondence that it

had the authority to depart from the mandate in the circumstances which had been

brought to its notice by the plaintiff. This correspondence is addressed below.

13. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant on 15 September 2009 stating that payments made

to Gibson & Associates Solicitors had been in breach of the company’s established internal

payment approval procedures. The payments related only to the personal expenditure of

one of the directors and in making the payments the director acted outside of his

authority. The bank was advised of this previously. The letter formally advised the

defendant that in the event that it “breaches this instruction, the company will rely on this

letter and the Bank’s previous knowledge, to legally recover any payments and any

resulting damages the Company may incur as a result.” The defendant replied on 21

September 2009 stating that, as a result of the ongoing difficulties, the defendant

believed that it would be in the plaintiff’s best interest to make alternative banking

arrangement and stated that it intended to cancel the existing overdraft facility within

twenty-one days. In two separate letters of the same date, addressed to Mr. William Kelly

and Mr. Gerard Kelly, the defendant notified the principals of the plaintiff that “we will

require a board resolution from the Company authorising any payments or transfers to be

made to Gibson Associates Solicitors” (per the letter to Mr. William Kelly) and “[p]lease

note that in the event of cheques presented in favour of Gibson Associates Solicitors…the

Bank will require a Board Resolution from the company in order to effect payment of

14. Two and a half weeks later, on 9 October 2009, the defendant wrote to Mr. Gerard Kelly

noting that the defendant had been put on notice of payment issues “that cannot be

“The Bank is now effectively on notice of an alleged misappropriation of

company funds. This is a serious allegation and as such the Bank has been put on

enquiry of circumstances whereby it should not honour the payment instruction

The Bank requires a board resolution revoking or amending the existing mandate.

If a board resolution is not furnished by 16 October 2009 then the signing authority

on the account will be revised by the Bank to “Two to Sign”, namely you and

William Kelly. The Bank has authority to change the signing authority on the

account, in light of the serious allegation of misappropriation of company

funds…[T]his is a serious situation which must be addressed in the short term to

facilitate the smooth operation of the company working account.” (emphasis added)

15. The defendant wrote again to both Gerard and William Kelly on 15 October 2009 stating

that the defendant required a board resolution revoking or amending the existing

mandate. If it was not furnished with a board resolution to that effect by 21 October 2009

it intended to revise the signing authority on the accounts to “Two to Sign”, namely

Gerard and William Kelly. It should be noted that this letter reiterated that the defendant

had authority to change the signing authority on the accounts in light of the serious

allegation of misappropriation of company funds. It enclosed a new company mandate to

be completed in accordance with revised signing instructions “to enable [their] records to

16. No new mandate was executed by the company and the defendant wrote again to Messrs.

Kelly, personally, on 22 October 2009. At this point in time, Mr. Kavanagh informed

Messrs. Kelly that the defendant had altered its position. He said that the defendant “has

been advised that the original company mandate should continue to operate and it is,

therefore, the intention of the bank to continue to operate the account in accordance with

the terms of the mandate.” The letter noted that if either party had any difficulty with

what was contained in the letter it was open for them to apply to the court for appropriate

relief and he stressed that it was not the intention of the defendant to become involved in

“The bank is aware that an allegation of wrongful appropriation has been made with

regards to the use of company funds and this is an issue for resolution between the

17. It may be observed in this context that, as the defendant was aware, there was

effectively a deadlock between Gerard and William Kelly concerning the affairs of the

plaintiff. In practical terms, therefore, there was little or no prospect of any change to the

mandate being agreed, whether by way of board resolution, or otherwise. There were s.

205 proceedings in being but, as of September/October 2009, there was an unresolved

dispute as to whether the petitioner, Gerard Kelly, was a member of the plaintiff and so

his standing to maintain the proceedings was a matter of dispute. In those circumstances,

any application for orders restraining payments from the plaintiff’s account with the

18. Thereafter, on 29 October 2009, the defendant authorised the first of the payments, the

subject of these proceedings, to Gibson & Associates in the sum of €30,000.

19. The trial judge considered whether the defendant had established a prima facie defence in

paras. 11-19 of her judgment. She did not address the defence filed by the defendant nor

did she analyse the evidence before the court to any significant extent.

“13. The defendant accepts that it received a request from the plaintiff in September

2009, to the effect that it should not make any further payments to this third party

but advised the plaintiff that a board resolution would be required to alter the

existing mandate. No board resolution was forthcoming and the defendant

14. There can be no dispute but that the defendant advised the plaintiff on numerous

occasions of the necessity to procure a board resolution. Further, having become

aware of the ongoing dispute between the directors of the company, the defendant

suggested that an application be brought for the appropriate relief through the

21. This summary of the correspondence is not entirely accurate in that it does not reference

the defendant’s repeated statements that it had the authority to change the signing

arrangements, in light of the allegations of wrongdoing that had been brought to its

notice. It was in that context that reference had been made to the need to procure a

board resolution. In other words, the defendant’s initial position was not that it could not

depart from the mandate in the absence of a board resolution but rather that, in the

absence of a resolution, it could and would do so: see, for instance, the letter of 15

22. The trial judge referred to the test set out by Finlay Geoghegan J. in Tribune Newspapers

(In Receivership) v. Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited (Ex Tempore, High Court,

25 March, 2011) in relation to the establishment of a prima facie defence as follows:-

“In my judgment, what is required is for a defendant seeking to establish a prima

facie defence is to objectively demonstrate the existence of admissible evidence

and relevant arguable legal submissions applicable thereto which, if accepted by a

“Having considered the factual evidence upon which the defendant seeks to rely in

establishing a prima facie defence to the within proceedings, this Court is satisfied

that the defendant has made out a reasonably sustainable defence and indeed a

24. The appellant submitted on appeal that the onus is on the defendant to establish that it

has a prima facie defence to each of the claims in the proceedings. If it fails to establish a

prima facie defence in respect of any one claim, then security for costs ought not to be

25. The appellant says that this defence must be found in the pleadings and that the affidavit

grounding the application is for the purposes of placing before the court admissible

evidence in support of that defence, not for expanding the grounds of defence beyond

those pleaded. Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial judge did not engage

sufficiently with its argument that the defendant had not established a prima facie

defence to its claim, and she erred in law and in fact in concluding that the defendant had

made out a prima facie defence to the claim that it had wrongfully honoured payments in

26. I agree. The defence relied upon by a defendant who seeks an order for security for costs,

and asserts that it has an arguable defence to the plaintiff’s claim, must be that pleaded

in the defence and the replies to particulars (if any). Even at the end of the hearing of the

appeal the precise basis upon which the respondent maintains that it was not liable to the

appellant for making the four impugned payments was not clear. The respondent did not

plead that it was obliged to honour all payments in accordance with the mandate or, in

the alternative, if it was not so obliged, that payment out in accordance with the mandate

afforded an absolute defence to the claim. It also does not advance any defence based

upon an alleged inability to dis-apply, or vary, the mandate. During the hearing of the

appeal, counsel for the respondent was invited to show where the defence even referred

to the mandate – much less relied upon an alleged obligation to operate the account in

accordance with the mandate – as a defence to the claim. Counsel referred to para. 28 of

the defence, quoted above, which contains an allegation of contributory negligence

against the plaintiff. There is no positive plea in the defence referable to the mandate.

27. The respondent’s application was grounded upon the affidavit of Mr. Mahon, as I have

noted above, and he is unable to give any contemporary evidence in relation to the

events at issue in these proceedings. He does no more than refer to the fact of the

correspondence which I have cited above. He does not and cannot add anything to the

defence of the defendant to the claim. This leaves the court simply with the

correspondence. The correspondence sets out a number of inconsistent positions adopted

by the respondent. Initially, it suggests that it was of the view that it had authority,

unilaterally, to vary the mandate or, in the alternative, not to honour specific instructions,

even if made in accordance with the existing mandate. It then said it was advised that it

should operate the account in accordance with the existing mandate but did not state the

basis for this change in its position. It did not say that it could not follow either of the two

alternatives previously suggested. While the correspondence, in all probability, will be

adduced at trial, I am not satisfied that the correspondence alone, without more,

establishes an evidential basis for a prima facie defence and, therefore, the respondent in

this application has not met the test set out in Tribune Newspapers. In any event, in the

absence of a pleaded defence, the correspondence does not assist the respondent in

28. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Limited

[1989] 1 WLR 1340, in support of his argument that the respondent was either obliged or

entitled to operate the account of the company in accordance with the existing mandate,

despite its knowledge of the allegation of misappropriation of funds. But this possible

defence to the claim was not pleaded and so cannot be relied upon as a prima facie

defence to the plaintiff’s claim in its application for security for costs. I have already

concluded that any such defence must be found in the pleadings and the affidavits are to

establish the evidential basis for that defence, so it seems to me that I may not have

regard to this argument on this appeal. For this reason, I refrain from addressing it and

make no observations on it, other than to point out that, as is apparent from the passage

from the judgment of May LJ. relied on by the respondent, Lipkin Gorman does not

suggest that a bank’s entitlement/duty to rely on the terms of a mandate is absolute.

29. It follows, in my view, that the respondent has not established relevant arguable legal

submissions applicable to admissible evidence and to the pleaded case which, if accepted

by a trial judge, would provide a defence to the plaintiff’s claim and, therefore, it has not

30. It is important to emphasise that I am not holding that the respondent may not have a

defence to the appellant’s claim. However, on the pleadings and the evidence before the

High Court, the respondent had not advanced a prima facie defence to one aspect of the

claim advanced by the appellant. In my judgment, the trial judge erred in holding

otherwise. She did so because she failed to analyse the pleaded defence and the precise

legal basis upon which the defendant asserted that it had a defence to the plaintiff’s

claim. In my opinion, the trial judge ought not to have awarded security for costs in the

31. In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the appeal in relation to

quantum of security ordered by the High Court.

Result: Allow appeal

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Irish Court of Appeal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Charles Kelly Ltd. v Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd. [2020] IECA 8 (29 January 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2020/2020IECA8.html Cite as: [2020] IECA 8

Irish Court of Appeal