The Court of Appeal has dismissed separate appeals by Brian and Attracta Murray against High Court judgments in favour of Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank over loans advanced in 2003 and 2007.
The High Court had ordered Brian Murray to repay €132,355.63 and Attracta Murray to repay €202,233.03. It found that Mr Murray had not signed the loan documents and that the charge over the couple’s family home was void. The bank did not appeal the finding that the charge was invalid.
The appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 19 January 2024, upheld the ruling against Mr Murray on the basis of unjust enrichment. The court said he had no agreement with the bank and therefore could not rely on the Consumer Credit Act 1995 to resist the claim. It also rejected his arguments that he was not a knowing recipient of the loan proceeds and that the bank should pursue only his wife under her loan agreement.
The court noted that Mr Murray had acknowledged receiving benefits from some payments made using the 2007 loan, including the repayment of the earlier loan and payments relating to his pension scheme and a field purchase. It said he knew of exceptional household spending and should have made inquiries about its source, even though he said he did not learn the full loan amount until 2011. The court concluded that the bank’s claim against him was not barred by the fact it also had a loan agreement with Mrs Murray.
Mrs Murray’s appeal was dismissed because she had not raised her Consumer Credit Act argument at trial, despite having the opportunity to do so. The appeal court said the point was not a new issue arising from a later High Court judgment and that allowing it on appeal would have deprived the bank of an opportunity to address relevant evidence. The court also observed that the proposed argument could depend on her own alleged misconduct, but the trial judge had made no finding that she forged her husband’s signature.
The Court of Appeal’s preliminary view was that the bank should receive its appeal costs from each appellant. Either appellant was given 14 days from delivery of the judgment to ask the registrar to schedule a hearing on a different costs order. The source does not state the final appeal-costs order.