- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Cantrell & Ors v Allied Irish Banks Plc & Ors
Factual and Procedural Background
These appeals arise from a decision of the High Court delivered on 28 April 2017 and an order made on 25 May 2017 concerning the application of the Statute of Limitations 1957, as amended, to claims brought by investors ("the Investors") in several property investment schemes promoted and placed by Company A. The investment schemes were conducted through multiple special purpose vehicles collectively referred to as “Belfry”. The Investors invested sums ranging from €100,000 to €400,000 between 2002 and 2006 in these Belfry funds, which invested in UK commercial properties using a combination of equity and secured borrowings.
The defendants ("the Appellants") include Company A and certain directors of the Belfry companies. The Investors claim damages for breach of contract, negligence, breach of duty, negligent misstatement, and misrepresentation arising from alleged negligent representations in marketing materials and failure to disclose or explain loan to value (LTV) covenants in the borrowings negotiated by the directors on behalf of the Belfry companies. The LTV covenants allegedly exposed the Investors to increased risk of loss without their knowledge.
The High Court trial judge determined a preliminary issue on the running of time under the Statute of Limitations, focusing on when the cause of action in tort accrued. The judge distinguished three categories of claims and found that certain negligence claims relating to the LTV covenants were not statute barred. The Appellants appealed that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in distinguishing between three categories of claims for the purpose of applying the Statute of Limitations.
- Whether the claims of misrepresentation and negligent statements relating to the existence and non-disclosure of LTV covenants accrued at the date of investment or at a later date when actual loss became manifest.
- Whether the cause of action in tort accrued at the time the Investors entered into the investments or when the loss became manifest due to the market downturn and invocation of the LTV covenants.
- Whether the trial judge was correct in his overall finding that the Investors’ claims relating to the LTV covenants were not statute barred.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The cause of action accrued at the date of investment when the Investors purchased the shares, as the alleged damage was the financial loss resulting from entering into the investments.
- The claims were statute barred because time began to run when the investments were made, consistent with established Supreme Court authority.
- The trial judge erred in making a distinction between tort and contract claims arising from the same facts.
- The Investors’ position that the cause of action did not accrue until the loss was discovered is inconsistent with the principle that there is no discoverability element in Irish law for limitation purposes, except in personal injury claims.
Respondents' (Investors') Arguments
- The cause of action did not accrue until actual loss was manifest, which occurred when the investments’ value declined significantly and the LTV covenants were triggered.
- The LTV covenants were not disclosed or explained at the time of investment, and the increased risk they imposed was a material factor causing loss.
- The claims relating to the LTV covenants are distinct from general mis-selling claims and should be treated separately for limitation purposes.
- The trial judge’s approach is supported by recent Supreme Court authority emphasizing that a cause of action in tort accrues only when damage is manifest and capable of being proved.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hegarty v. O'Loughran [1990] 1 IR 148 | Cause of action in tort accrues when both the wrong and damage have occurred; time runs from manifestation of damage. | Affirmed that time begins to run when damage is manifest, not merely on the occurrence of the wrongful act. |
| Brandley v. Deane [2017] IESC 83 | Extensive review of accrual of cause of action; time runs from when damage is manifest and capable of being proved, not from discoverability. | Supported a manifest damage test over discoverability; clarified that damage must be capable of proof even if not yet discovered. |
| Gallagher v. ACC Bank [2012] IESC 35 | Cause of action accrues when actual damage occurs; mere possibility of loss is insufficient to start limitation period. | Distinguished on facts; emphasized that claims based on entering a transaction that was bound to fail accrue immediately. |
| Komady Ltd v. Ulster Bank [2014] IEHC 325 | Claims for negligent mis-selling accrue on date of investment where loss is immediate and ascertainable. | Distinguished from present case; timing of actual loss in Komady more closely resembled Gallagher than the present claims. |
| Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v. Oscar Faber [1983] 2 AC 1 | Time runs from manifestation of damage, not from the existence of a latent defect. | Supported the principle that defects alone do not start limitation period; damage must be manifest. |
| Law Society v. Sephton & Co. [2006] UKHL 22 | Contingent liability is not damage until the contingency occurs; limitation runs from actual loss. | Applied to distinguish between contingent risk and actual loss; endorsed that time does not run from mere possibility. |
| Wardley Australia Ltd v. Western Australia [1992] 175 CLR 514 | Loss occurs only when adverse balance is struck; contingent liability does not constitute damage until event occurs. | Favoured by Irish Supreme Court; used to reject limitation running from mere possibility of loss. |
| Axa Insurance Ltd v. Akther & Darby [2009] EWCA Civ 1166 | Loss accrues when plaintiff is in a worse position due to flawed transaction, even if loss is not immediately apparent. | Applied to support that loss may accrue at time of flawed transaction despite delayed manifest loss. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analysed the accrual of the cause of action in tort under the Statute of Limitations, focusing on the distinction between the occurrence of a wrongful act and the manifestation of damage. It reaffirmed the principle that a cause of action accrues only when both the wrong and damage have occurred, and that time does not begin to run from the mere possibility of loss.
The Court considered the factual matrix of the Belfry investments, noting that the investments performed well initially and that loss only became manifest after the market downturn and the triggering of LTV covenants. The LTV covenants, which were not disclosed or explained to the Investors, increased the risk beyond what was bargained for.
The Court distinguished the present claims from those in Gallagher v. ACC Bank, where the investment was bound to fail from the outset, and from Komady Ltd v. Ulster Bank, where loss was immediate. It also rejected the application of a discoverability test for limitation, consistent with Supreme Court authority, emphasizing that time runs from the date damage is manifest and capable of proof, not from when it is discovered.
Critically, the Court held that the inclusion of the LTV covenants in the borrowing arrangements constituted a manifest and provable loss at the time they were entered into, even if the full extent of the loss was only later realized due to market forces. The damage was not latent but capable of being discovered upon enquiry at that earlier stage.
Therefore, the cause of action accrued at the time the LTV covenants were agreed, which was after the initial investments, and outside the six-year limitation period. The Court found that the High Court judge erred in concluding that time began to run only when the investments were written down to nil.
The Court also acknowledged the difficulty in measuring damages and the complex causal connection between the negligent act and financial loss, but these issues did not affect the limitation analysis at this stage.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the cause of action in tort accrued when the LTV covenants were entered into, not when the Investors suffered manifest loss due to market decline. Consequently, the Investors’ claims relating to the LTV covenants are statute barred as they fall outside the six-year limitation period.
The direct effect is that the Investors cannot pursue claims based on negligent misrepresentation or omission concerning the LTV covenants. The Court did not set a new precedent beyond clarifying the application of existing principles to the facts, and remitted unresolved issues regarding specific statutory provisions back to the High Court for further consideration.
Alert