He alleges that failures by Ulster Bank and EBS damaged his relationship with his son for many years because his former partner believed he was not making the maintenance payments.

The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, claims that after his relationship with his former partner ended many years ago, she obtained a court order requiring him to pay approximately €45 per week maintenance for his son.

He claims he set up a standing order with Ulster Bank, where he held an account, to pay maintenance to his ex-partner’s account with EBS.

However, for reasons that have not firmly been established. the monies were held in a holding account for EBS with Ulster Bank and were never lodged to her account.

The man did not know that the money had not been transferred until some 12 years after the District Court made the maintenance order.

He claims the situation came to light during a phone call between the man and his ex-partner to discuss an issue about their son.

During the course of the conversation, the man said he told her that due to an IT issue at his bank some of the weekly payments had not gone through, but the situation would be rectified shortly.

She told him that she had never received any maintenance payments from him since the order was made.

In his action the man claims that after their relationship broke down that his former partner broke off all contact with him, resulting in him having no contact with his son for many years.

For long periods his efforts to maintain contact with his son were unsuccessful, he claims.

He alleges that this came about because his former partner had not received the maintenance payments and she believed that he had not paid any money for their son.

The maintenance money was eventually paid to his former partner’s account.

However, the man has sued both Ulster Bank and EBS for damages for alleged negligence and breach of his constitutional rights.

Represented by Peter Shanley BL, instructed by O’Connor and Bergin Solicitors, the man also claims he was defamed by the defendants who he claims damaged his reputation by falsely conveying the meaning to his ex-partner that he had failed to support their son financially.

The claims are denied.

The action came to light in a recent decision by the Court of Appeal which considered an appeal on a preliminary issue in the case.

That court, comprised of Ms Justice Mary Irvine, Mr Justice John Edwards and Ms Justice Marie Whelan, dismissed an appeal by EBS to overturn a High Court ruling in relation to the claim of defamation.

EBS sought to overturn a ruling by Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh, who dismissed the financial institution’s bid to have the man’s defamation claim against it struck out.

EBS argued in its appeal that the High Court had erred in its finding that the building society had not made out that the man’s defamation claim was bound to fail.

The man’s lawyers opposed the appeal and argued that the High Court’s decision should be left undisturbed.

Giving the appeal court’s decision, Mr Justice Edwards said he could find no error with the High Court’s decision.

He said it was not clear that the claim of defamation in this as pleaded was bound to fail.

The fact that a case may appear innovative or weak was not a reason for dismissing such an action. The jurisdiction to strike out such pleadings the judge added should be used sparingly.

The High Court judge had applied the correct law in a case where complex issues had been raised.

In all the circumstances the appeal by EBS seeking to strike the claim of defamation must be dismissed, he added.