Cooney & Anor v KBC Bank Ireland PLC (Approved)

Cooney & Anor v. KBC Bank Ireland PLC (Approved)

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for further and better particulars in a case where the Defendant has admitted a breach of contract, issued an apology, and taken remedial steps including an offer of compensation. The Defendant considers the compensation sufficient, whereas the Plaintiffs disagree, making the proper amount of compensation a key issue for trial. The application was brought to clarify or expand on the particulars provided by the Defendant, but the court found the application unsuccessful.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to further and better particulars in the context of admitted breach and remedial actions.
The extent to which particulars must be necessary or desirable to enable a party to plead or for a fair hearing.
The permissible scope of particulars in relation to denials, non-admissions, and requests that may resemble interrogatories.
The relationship between particulars, discovery, and the provision of documents or evidence.
The procedural requirements and risks associated with applications for further and better particulars, including costs implications.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Cooney v. Browne (No. 2) [1985] I.R. 185	Particulars should only be ordered if necessary or desirable to plead or for a fair hearing. Particulars enable a party to know the case to meet and avoid surprise. Where pleadings are too general, particulars may be ordered to inform of the range of evidence.	Established foundational principles on when particulars should be ordered, guiding the court's assessment of the application as failing to meet these thresholds.
Armstrong v. Moffatt [2013] IEHC 148	Courts disfavor over-expansive or oppressive requests for particulars. Particulars must relate to matters stated in pleadings. Requests resembling interrogatories are inappropriate as particulars.	Supported refusal of particulars that were overly broad, unrelated to pleadings, or effectively interrogatories.
AIB Plc v. AIG Europe Ltd [2018] IEHC 677	Further particulars not ordered unless necessary or desirable to plead or for fair hearing. Particulars cannot be used to extract evidence details. Courts will not order particulars that are oppressive or unreasonable. Particulars of denials generally not required unless denial amounts to a positive allegation. Parties cannot hide behind a traverse to avoid particulars. Prior exchange of witness statements reduces risk of surprise. Particulars may be directed after discovery in some cases.	Reinforced principles limiting particulars to necessary matters, rejecting oppressive requests, and emphasizing procedural fairness and trial preparation.
Aranwell Ltd v. Pura Food Products [2004] Lexis Citation 3810	Parties seeking particulars are not entitled to copies of documents or records cited in pleadings; discovery is a separate process.	Supported the court’s refusal to order production of documents as particulars, emphasizing the separate discovery process.
Tromso Sparebank v. Beirne and Ors. [1988] Lexis Citation 3235	Fraud claims must be clearly pleaded. Before seeking further particulars by motion, a party must notify the other party in writing of deficiencies to avoid costs risk.	Informed the court’s caution about costs and procedural fairness, noting the Plaintiffs’ failure to engage prior to the application.
Coyle v. Hannan [1975] N.I. 160	Requests for particulars that amount to interrogatories about matters not pleaded are not permissible.	Supported refusal of particulars that were effectively interrogatories unrelated to pleadings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied established legal principles governing applications for further and better particulars. It emphasized that particulars must be necessary or desirable either to enable pleading or for a fair hearing, and must relate to matters stated in the pleadings. The court rejected requests that sought details of denials or non-admissions, treated attempts to obtain interrogatory-style information as impermissible, and declined to order production of documents which are properly sought by discovery. The court also noted the procedural impropriety of the Plaintiffs not issuing a prior notice for better particulars before making the application, which could have facilitated issue narrowing. Each item of particulars sought was examined and found either to be an impermissible interrogation, unrelated to pleadings, or unnecessary given the nature of the case and admitted breach. The court reasoned that the compensation dispute is a matter for trial determination, not particulars.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiffs' application for further and better particulars in its entirety.

The direct effect is that the Defendant is not required to provide any of the additional particulars sought. The court indicated a likely costs order in favor of the Defendant due to the procedural deficiencies of the application. No new precedent was established; the decision reaffirms existing principles limiting the scope of particulars and emphasizing procedural fairness and proportionality in litigation.

Click here to read the full judgment

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.