The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by John and Paula Roarty arising from a Bank of Ireland judgment of €898,981.13 obtained against them after they failed to enter an appearance to a summary summons.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 22 February 2019, the court rejected Paula Roarty’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to set aside the default judgment. It also dismissed a separate appeal concerning a motion for “clarity”. The court said it was unnecessary to decide John Roarty’s appeal against the striking out of his own set-aside application because the same proposed defences had been rejected in his wife’s appeal.
The Roartys had sent the High Court Central Office a document described as a conditional appearance in November 2015. The office replied that the court rules did not provide for one in their circumstances, except where jurisdiction was contested under the applicable European regulation. The couple wrote back saying they would await a further reply before resubmitting the document. No further response came. The bank’s solicitors, who had not received an appearance, obtained judgment in default in January 2016.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the Roartys were taken by surprise, but held the judgment had been regularly obtained. It said that to set aside such a judgment, a defendant must show more than an arguable defence: the defence must have a reasonable prospect of success.
The main proposed defence concerned personal guarantees signed for loans to John Roarty Quarries Limited. Paula Roarty said the bank had represented that the guarantees were “director guarantees” limited to quarry land owned by the company, and that the couple had been misled about the extent of their personal liability. The court agreed with the High Court judge that the distinction between a director’s guarantee and a personal guarantee made no difference in this case. The signed guarantees contained no limit restricting recourse to the quarry land, and the court noted there was no objective or independent evidence supporting the alleged misrepresentation.
The Roartys also argued that they had been unduly influenced and relied on consumer-protection rules concerning unfair contract terms. The appeal court upheld the High Court’s assessment that the proposed defences did not meet the required threshold. It said the Roartys had not established that they were consumers for the purposes of the regulations, given that the guarantees related to a company’s business borrowing.
The court also dismissed the appeal over the “motion for clarity”, ruling there was no procedure allowing a party to ask the court for clarity in the manner attempted. The appeals concerned the refusal to reopen the default judgment and the striking out of that separate motion; the judgment did not determine a trial of the underlying bank claim.