- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kennedy v. Allied Irish Banks plc
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiffs consist of two individual directors (collectively “Plaintiff”) and three closely-held development companies (“Plaintiff Company 1,” “Plaintiff Company 2,” and “Plaintiff Company 3”). They were long-standing customers of two banking entities, “Company A” (a clearing bank) and its affiliate “Company B” (a specialist finance arm). Between February and April 1990 the banks sanctioned sizable facilities to fund:
- Residential development on lands owned by Plaintiff Company 1.
- Acquisition of a separate development site by Plaintiff Company 2.
- Purchase of a hotel by Plaintiff Company 3.
Draw-downs were made, but by September 1990 interest was in arrears and agreed repayment timetables had not been met. On 12 October 1990 the parties executed fresh facility letters that rolled up principal and accrued interest into two new term loans, thereby extinguishing the earlier facilities. No further credit was then available.
The Plaintiffs later asserted that:
- A verbal assurance had been given in September/October 1990 that an additional £250,000 facility would follow.
- Separate assurances in 1991 promised a further £100,000 loan and the retention of an existing overdraft for Plaintiff Company 3.
When those funds were not advanced and the overdraft was withdrawn, the Plaintiffs sued Company A and Company B for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of duty of confidence. The High Court (Judge Murphy) dismissed all claims and granted Company A judgment on certain guarantees and loan balances. The present decision is the Supreme Court’s determination of the Plaintiffs’ appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the banks were contractually bound to provide an additional £250,000 facility (or any further credit) after 12 October 1990.
- Whether the withdrawal of Plaintiff Company 3’s £100,000 overdraft in March 1991 breached any contractual promise.
- Whether, independent of contract, the banks owed a tortious duty of care that was breached by refusing further finance, withdrawing facilities, or failing to explain the consequences of the October 1990 refinancing.
- Whether findings of fact made by the trial judge could be disturbed on appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
- The banks orally agreed to advance an extra £250,000 in late 1990 and confirmed that decision by telephone in May 1991.
- Company A agreed to maintain a £100,000 overdraft for Plaintiff Company 3 once additional security was provided; its withdrawal was a breach of contract and a breach of trust.
- Even if no express contract existed, the banks owed a duty of care arising from a “special relationship” and from their own representations.
Defendants’ Arguments
- No binding agreement for further funding was ever reached; any provisional recommendation by Company B’s credit committee was expressly subject to approval by Company A’s group committee, which was refused.
- The October 1990 documents merely refinanced existing liabilities; the Plaintiffs were fully aware no additional headroom remained.
- Tort liability cannot exceed the scope of the parties’ contractual obligations; no special duty was assumed beyond ordinary banking practice.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hay v O'Grady [1992] 1 IR 210 | Appellate courts will not overturn trial findings of fact supported by credible evidence. | Used to uphold Judge Murphy’s factual determinations regarding alleged oral agreements. |
| Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] 1 AC 80 | Contractual analysis prevails over tort in commercial banker–customer relationships. | Relied on to reject an expanded tort duty and confine liability to contractual terms. |
| Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1994] 3 All ER 506 | Concurrent liability in contract and tort is possible unless inconsistent with the contract. | Cited to show that, even where concurrency is possible, no wider tort duty arose here. |
| National Bank of Greece SA v Pinios Shipping Co (No 3) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 126 | A claimant who fails in contract cannot succeed in tort on the same facts. | Supported the conclusion that repudiated contract claims could not be re-cast as negligence. |
| Hedley Byrne v Heller & Co Ltd | Duty of care for negligent misstatement where special skill is relied upon. | Distinguished: no assumption of responsibility by the banks beyond contractual terms. |
| Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555 | Illustrates overlap between contractual and tortious duties. | Referenced in discussion of concurrency but not decisive to outcome. |
| Lloyds Bank Plc v Cobb (CA, 1991 unrep.) | Bank owes no duty to a borrower when evaluating a loan; it acts for its own benefit. | Adopted to affirm that the banks could consider only their own interests when deciding on credit. |
| Montgomery Ward & Co v Scharrenbeck (Texas SC) | Every contract carries a duty to perform with care and skill. | Cited by Plaintiffs; court held any such duty was fulfilled. |
| Tulsk Co-op Livestock Mart Ltd v Ulster Bank Ltd (HC 1983) | Bank may owe negligence duty where it assumes a specific task. | Distinguished; no comparable assumption of responsibility occurred. |
| Towey v Ulster Bank Ltd [1987] ILRM 142 | Similar to Tulsk; bank liability for negligent advice. | Distinguished on the same basis. |
| TE Potterton Ltd v Northern Bank Ltd [1993] 1 IR 413 | Criteria for banker’s duty of care. | Referred to but found inapplicable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Findings of Fact. The trial judge had concluded that no binding promise for additional finance was made and that the October 1990 refinancing documents were fully understood by the Plaintiffs. Those findings were amply supported by evidence from senior bank officers; the Supreme Court, applying Hay v O'Grady, declined to interfere.
Contract Claims. Because the facility letters entitled the banks to withhold further lending and to review quarterly, refusal to advance new funds could not amount to breach. Any provisional credit-committee indication was expressly condition precedent on parent-bank approval, which never materialised. As to the overdraft, the account was already under pressure and the bank was contractually free to demand repayment on notice; no term loan of £100,000 had ever been promised.
Tort Claims. Drawing heavily on Tai Hing and related authorities, the Court reiterated that tort duties in a commercial banking context cannot exceed what the parties have bargained for. No separate “advisory” role had been assumed by the banks; they acted solely to protect their own lending exposure. Absent an express undertaking or demonstrable reliance akin to Hedley Byrne, no duty of care arose. Because the contract claims failed on their merits, and the alleged tort duties were co-extensive (or wider), the negligence claims also necessarily failed.
Confidentiality Allegation. A suggested breach of confidence was not pleaded below and therefore could not be entertained on appeal.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED; HIGH COURT ORDER AFFIRMED.
The Supreme Court upheld judgment for Company A on its counterclaim and dismissed all contractual and tortious claims against both Defendant banks. Practically, the Plaintiffs remain liable for the outstanding loan balances and guarantees. The decision reiterates that:
- Appellate courts will not disturb trial findings of fact absent clear error.
- Banks in commercial relationships owe no duty to advance further credit or to prioritise a borrower’s interests unless they expressly agree to do so.
- Attempting to re-label failed contract claims as negligence will not succeed where the alleged duty does not extend beyond the contract.
No new precedent was created, but the judgment consolidates existing principles on the limits of banker liability in Irish and UK jurisprudence.
Alert