Judgment: 2019-02-22 · Court archive

High Court grants Bank of Ireland summary judgment against one borrower, lets second defend

The court entered judgment against Aidan White for €171,825.12 plus interest, while allowing Mary White to defend the bank’s claim because she raised an arguable issue over whether she agreed to the loan.

High Court · [2019] IEHC 465

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Aidan White
  • Mary White (Defendant)
What

The court entered judgment against Aidan White for €171,825.12 plus interest, while allowing Mary White to defend the bank’s claim because she raised an arguable issue over whether she agreed to the loan.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 75 Riversdale
  • Oranmore
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Both defendants argued that the property had been sold at an undervalue and that the receiver was acting for the bank, which could make the bank responsible for the sale. The judge found that the evidence did not establish an arguable defence on that basis. An allegation of undervalue alone did not change the receiver’s agency, and the defendants had not shown evidence, or a basis to expect evidence, that the bank directed or interfered with the receiver’s decisions. The court made no finding on the property’s proper market value and expressed no view on any separate action the defendants might take against the receiver.

The High Court granted Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank summary judgment against Aidan White for €171,825.12 plus interest, but refused summary judgment against Mary White and gave her liberty to defend the proceedings.

Mr Justice MacGrath delivered the ruling on 22 February 2019. The bank’s original claim was for €249,615.80 plus interest. After a receiver sold the mortgaged property and applied the net proceeds to the loan, the amount claimed was reduced.

The bank said the Whites had agreed in 2004 to a €220,000 mortgage loan secured on a property at 75 Riversdale, Oranmore. It alleged that repayments were missed and that it demanded repayment in 2011. The property was sold by the receiver in October 2014 for €100,000. The bank said €94,000 in net proceeds was credited to the loan account.

Both defendants argued that the property had been sold at an undervalue and that the receiver was acting for the bank, which could make the bank responsible for the sale. The judge found that the evidence did not establish an arguable defence on that basis. An allegation of undervalue alone did not change the receiver’s agency, and the defendants had not shown evidence, or a basis to expect evidence, that the bank directed or interfered with the receiver’s decisions. The court made no finding on the property’s proper market value and expressed no view on any separate action the defendants might take against the receiver.

Mary White also denied signing the loan offer or authorising anyone to sign for her. A handwriting expert’s opinion, as described in an affidavit, said it was probable she did not write the questioned signature. The judge held that she had raised an arguable issue about whether she signed or otherwise agreed to the loan, and whether her conduct amounted to ratification. He did not decide whether she was ultimately liable; those issues remain for the proceedings.

The bank argued that Mary White had received the benefit of the loan and was bound to repay it. The judge said the evidence at this stage did not make it clear that she had no defence. He therefore refused summary judgment against her and granted her liberty to defend on the basis that she did not sign the loan agreement, was not otherwise a party to it, and was not liable under it.

The order against Aidan White was for €171,825.12, with interest from 2 June 2017. The judgment did not grant judgment against Mary White.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review