Legal Research
Cases
Barclays Bank v O'Brien

Barclays Bank v O'Brien

Case [1993] UKHL 6 21 October 1993

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/253

Barclays Bank plc (Appellants)

v.
O'Brien and another (A.P.) (Respondents)

JUDGMENT

Die Jovis 21° Octobris 1993

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to whom was
referred the Cause Barclays Bank plc against O'Brien and another,
That the Committee had heard Counsel as well on Monday the 26th
as on Tuesday the 27th, Wednesday the 28th and Thursday the 29th
days of April last upon the Petition and Appeal of Barclays Bank
plc of 54 Lombard Street, London EC3P 3AH, praying that the
matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely
an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 22nd day of May
1992, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court
of Parliament and that the said Order might be reversed, varied
or altered or that the Petitioners might have such other relief
in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of
Parliament might seem meet; as upon the case of Bridget Mary
O'Brien lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due
consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in
this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen
assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal
of the 22nd day of May 1992 complained of in the said Appeal be,
and the same is hereby, Affirmed and that the said Petition and
Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it
is further Ordered. That the Appellants do pay or cause to be
paid to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in
respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified
by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the
parties; and that the costs of the Respondents be taxed in
accordance with the Legal Aid Act 1988.

Cler: Parliamentor:

Judgment: 21 October 1993

HOUSE OF LORDS

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

(APPELLANTS)

O 'BRIEN AND ANOTHER (A. P.)
(RESPONDENTS)

Lord Templeman
Lord Lowry
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Woolf

LORD TEMPLEMAN. My Lords, for the reasons to be given by my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson I would dismiss the appeal.

LORD LOWRY. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Browne-Wilkinson. I agree with it and for the reasons he gives I too would dismiss the appeal.

LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON. My Lords, in this appeal your Lordships for the first time have to consider a problem which has given rise to reported decisions of the Court of Appeal on no less than 11 occasions in the last eight years and which has led to a difference of judicial view. Shortly stated the question is whether a bank is entitled to enforce against a wife an obligation to secure a debt owed by her husband to the bank…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barclays Bank v O'Brien

Details

Case: [1993] UKHL 6
Decision Date