The Court of Appeal has dismissed John O’Mahony’s appeal against summary judgment for Irish Life & Permanent plc, trading as Permanent TSB, for €927,463.08 plus costs.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 8 May 2015, upheld an order made by the High Court. That order gave the bank summary judgment on money it said was due under borrowings. The appeal concerned whether O’Mahony had shown a bona fide defence that warranted sending the claim to a full plenary hearing.
O’Mahony, who represented himself, argued in the High Court that the bank had not properly proved the debt and had failed to provide documents he requested. He also advanced proposed defences involving the value and terms of mortgage security, the validity of the mortgage, securitisation, a charge over the bank’s assets, the value attributed to security, and alleged reckless lending.
The Court of Appeal said the proposed defences did not meet the required threshold. It said the bank was suing for money lent and was not relying on the mortgage security in these proceedings, making arguments about the mortgage irrelevant to the claim. It rejected the proposed set-off of the security’s value, noting that O’Mahony did not contend that the bank owed him money. On securitisation, the court referred to affidavits from bank personnel stating that his loans were not part of a securitisation agreement and remained with the bank. It also found no arguable basis for the other proposed defences, including the claim that the loans were non-recourse or that alleged reckless lending barred recovery.
The court also considered objections that parts of two bank affidavits contained hearsay. It accepted that particular statements attributed to the bank’s solicitor were hearsay, but said those statements were unnecessary and their inclusion did not prevent judgment.
O’Mahony raised a separate argument on appeal that the bank’s affidavit of debt did not comply with the Bankers Books Evidence Acts 1879–1989. The court declined to determine it because it had not been raised in the High Court or included in either notice of appeal. It said the issue would have to await another case in which it was raised and argued at first instance.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court order was correct and dismissed the appeal. The judgment records the underlying order as summary judgment for €927,463.08 plus costs, to be taxed if not agreed.