In Permanent TSB plc -v- Walsh1, no horse, hawk, or robe was provided in purported satisfaction of the debt, but rather the Defendant had paid off one of two loan facilities. It was claimed that an agreement had been reached with a staff member of the Plaintiff, at a local hotel, to the effect that only that one account needed to be cleared and “nothing further would happen” upon doing so; this was disputed by the Plaintiff. A statement of account for both facilities only referred to the balance for the first account, and this was relied upon to demonstrate that this agreement had been reached.
Mr Justice Barrett found that there had been no concluded restructuring agreement, given the contents of letters from the Defendant that made no mention of there having been one. However, he also went on to rule that, even had such an agreement been concluded, it could not bind the Plaintiff, on the basis of the principles established in Pinnel's Case. In the absence of any detriment to the Defendant by reason of having made part payment, the Plaintiff was not estopped from insisting on the payment of the remainder of the moneys owing to them. Mr Justice Barrett had delivered two judgments in 20182 by reference to the more than 400 year old principles of Pinnel's Case, and no doubt the High Court will be called on to issue another such reminder before long.
1.  IEHC 45; delivered on 31 January 2019.
2. Healy -v- Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd. & anor,  IEHC 12; Clones Credit Union Limited -v- Strain & ors,  IEHC 241.
OSM Partners’ expert Litigation and Dispute Management Department advises and represents a broad range of clients across all sectors, including financial institutions, receivers, credit unions, government bodies, management companies and private individuals.
Our experienced team represent our clients at all Courts to resolve disputes through litigation, alternative dispute resolution and, where appropriate, arbitration and mediation.