The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jeremiah Healy’s appeal against a High Court summary judgment of €914,762.19 in favour of Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank, but left costs for a further hearing after raising concern about delays in providing details of property sales.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 26 April 2023, concerned three loans advanced to Healy and John McCarthy in 2007 and 2008. Healy was the sole appellant. The bank said the borrowers defaulted, and four properties secured against the loans were sold in 2014. The sale proceeds were credited against the balances.
The bank began summary judgment proceedings in 2015. In February 2022, the High Court granted judgment for €914,762.19. Healy appealed, arguing that the case should have been sent to a full hearing because of disputes about the interest charged, the accounting for property sales and the bank’s decision not to include the loans in its tracker mortgage review.
On the property sales, the Court of Appeal said the bank’s affidavit had eventually given detailed information about valuations, sale prices and credits to the loan accounts. Although the information was provided “much later than it should have been”, Healy raised no further issue with it. The court found nothing in the exchanged affidavits that could amount to a defence on this point.
Healy had also argued that the European Central Bank rate referenced in the loan terms became unavailable in October 2008, requiring the bank to notify the borrowers of a replacement rate. The court noted that this claim was supported by hearsay advice from his solicitor, without supporting documentation or expert evidence. The bank, by contrast, submitted affidavits explaining that the ECB continued to publish the relevant main refinancing rate after changing how liquidity was allocated. The court concluded that the High Court was entitled to find Healy had not established a credible defence on the evidence before it.
Healy relied on a separate case, Bank of Ireland v Phelan, where a judge had said the rate issue required further consideration on the evidence in that case. The Court of Appeal ruled that Healy could not introduce that as a new argument without the court’s permission. It also said Phelan did not resolve the rate issue and was of little assistance given the lack of supporting evidence in Healy’s case.
The court held that the tracker review issue could not provide a defence to the claim, and dismissed all grounds of appeal. It said the High Court judgment would ordinarily be affirmed, including its costs order. However, because the delay in providing property sale particulars may have increased litigation costs, the court directed a brief further hearing to address costs in both courts. The judgment did not determine the final costs position.