A severely disabled man has sued the Northern Bank group for negligence over its alleged mismanagement of a trust fund set up on his behalf. He claims £60,000 lodged with the group had disappeared within 15 years and had failed to yield an income for him.
Mr Cyril Boles (55), Ard na Mara, Malahide, Co Dublin, was 16 when he was involved in road accident in July 1963. A year later he received what was then a record High Court award of damages of £65,227. He has been confined to a wheelchair since the accident.
Proceedings were adjourned yesterday after the court was told that last December, 14 years after the action was initiated, the bank received a letter from Mr Boles's solicitor, Ms Peggy Behan, stating that Mr Boles was of unsound mind even before his action against the bank was brought.
Mr Justice Kelly said he would allow lawyers for Mr Boles to bring a motion on March 11th seeking to deliver a reply to the bank's defence (which was lodged in 1993 and which stated that Mr Boles's claim was statute-barred except for any matters which happened within a six-year period before he brought his action).
Mr Justice Kelly also asked that an application be made in the meantime for an inquiry to be conducted by the High Court into whether Mr Boles should be made a ward of court.
Mr Boles is suing Northern Bank Trust Corporation Ltd, Northern Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd, Northern Bank Trustees Co Ltd and Northern Bank (Ireland) Ltd. He claims he gave £60,000 for a trust fund to benefit him.
Mr Justice Kelly said there appeared to have been some discussion as to how the monies ought to be dealt with given the nature of Mr Boles's injuries. There appeared from correspondence to have been a suggestion at least that wardship ought to have been considered.
It was decided not to proceed along that route and instead a trust fund was created. It was claimed that within 15 years of the fund's creation, it had disappeared. Mr Boles claimed there had been a breach of contract, negligence and a breach of trust by the trustees which the bank group denied.
In a defence delivered as far back as April 1993, the bank group was claiming that anything earlier than six years in advance of the bringing of the action was statute-barred. In preparing its defence, the group had asked Mr Boles's lawyers in 1991 what they meant by claiming he was a "severely disabled person". Mr Boles's lawyers said he did "not suffer a disability of the mind" but was unable to walk and his speech was affected.
Last December 19th, Mr Boles's lawyers wrote that they were withdrawing their 1991 reply and were now claiming that before the start of the action, Mr Boles was of unsound mind as envisaged in section 48 of the Statute of Limitations Act and, therefore, his claim was not statute-barred.
Mr Justice Kelly said he had seen medical reports which raised a question as to whether Mr Boles was competent to conduct this litigation and to give instructions. It was desirable that an application should be made for an investigation on the wardship side.