Businessman's claim against IBRC dismissed

By Ann O'Loughlin

A damages claim brought against Irish Banking Resolution Corporation by businessman and former SIAC Construction chief executive Finn Lyden has been dismissed by the High Court.

Mr Lyden brought proceedings arising out of a 2006 investment he made in a fund promoted by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd, which subsequently became IBRC, together with a loan agreement.

Mr Leyden repaid the loan in 2008, and the bank continued to hold the investment on his behalf.

In 2012 Mr Lyden's lawyers issued proceedings on his behalf against IBRC seeking a declaration that the contract he entered into in respect of the investment was null and void.

He also sought orders that he be repaid all payments he made in respect of the contract.

He further sought damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement.

IBRC sought to have the claim struck out on the grounds that there had been a delay in progressing the case that was inordinate and inexcusable.

It claimed that due to the delay it would be greatly prejudiced if it went to trial.

Lawyers for Mr Lyden opposed IBRC's application, on grounds including that he was awaiting the outcome of a related claim brought by another individual Mr Sean O'Driscoll.

In a judgement dismissing the action, Ms Justice Caroline Costello said the delay had been inordinate.

The plenary summons had been issued in December 2012 and a statement of claim had not been delivered until October 2017.

While Mr Lyden had said he was awaiting the outcome of other litigation the Judge said she did not accept that the delay was legitimately attributable to the other case.

The Judge added that the balance of justice favoured dismissing the action, rather than continuing the proceedings.

IBRC would suffer prejudice because oral evidence would be required after a very significant lapse of time.

Some 12 years had passed since the key events of the subject of the action.

Had the trial taken place six or seven years earlier, which would have been possible if the plaintiff acted with reasonable expedition, it was "more likely a trial judge would have been able to make a fair and accurate assessment of the defendant's witnesses as to fact."

The plaintiff was solely responsible for the delay the judge said.