The Court of Appeal has struck out Allied Irish Banks plc’s claim against Balford Construction Limited concerning a bank guarantee for Roscommon County Council, but dismissed the company’s appeal over the bank’s separate loan claim.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 9 June 2021, leaves the loan dispute to proceed to a plenary hearing in the High Court. The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the company was legally bound by the 2010 loan facility or whether the amount claimed was owed.
The bank had sought summary judgment on two claims. It said the company owed €286,101.25 under a loan facility dated 27 April 2010, and claimed a further €167,600 under a guarantee in favour of the county council. The High Court adjourned the summary judgment application for plenary hearing, finding an arguable defence to the loan claim and directing the bank to provide a fully particularised statement of claim.
On appeal, the company argued that the bank’s claims should be dismissed, citing errors in affidavits and the failure to establish a cause of action. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that shortcomings in evidence automatically required the whole case to be struck out. It found that the loan claim pleaded a cause of action, while questions about the evidence and any proposed amendment should be dealt with by the High Court.
The company’s director said the 2010 facility was connected to an earlier loan and disputed whether the company’s director’s wife had signed the relevant documents. The bank’s evidence was corrected to say that the facility renewed an existing loan rather than advancing new money. The Court of Appeal said those matters could be examined at the plenary hearing; it made no finding that the alleged errors were deliberate falsehoods.
The bank withdrew its guarantee claim while the appeal was pending, and the court struck out that part of the summons. It said the bank’s material and unexplained errors about the guarantee justified awarding the company its full High Court costs of the summary judgment motion. The court proposed that the company receive 50% of the appeal costs, with the other half reserved to the High Court action, subject to further submissions from the parties.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the company’s appeal concerning the remaining claims. The bank’s separate application to amend its claim was for the High Court to decide, including any arguments about prejudice or limitation.