The High Court has adjourned Bank of Ireland’s application for summary judgment against two guarantors, finding that the bank had not adequately particularised the debt it sought to recover.
The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland sought liberty to enter judgment for €120,000 against each of Peter Hanley and Philip Hanley under separate guarantees. The guarantees covered liabilities of Dublin Balloon Printing Company Limited, which went into liquidation in February 2011. Andrew Hanley was also named as a defendant, but the application addressed in this judgment sought judgment against the first and third named defendants.
The bank’s claim was based on an overdraft and a term loan. It pleaded that the company’s liabilities had reached €205,482.89 by May 2016, and sought the €120,000 guarantee limit from each defendant. The bank exhibited account statements and said the combined final balances showed €205,482.80 was due. The judge noted that the statements were incomplete and that the evidence did not confirm they had been sent to the defendants before proceedings began.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v O’Malley, the defendants argued that the bank had not provided enough information to establish a prima facie debt. The judge agreed. The claim did not explain how the pleaded sum was calculated or refer to the account statements, while the statements did not provide full details of interest rates, charges and other additions. The court said the bank had to provide enough detail for the defendants and the court to assess the basis of the amount claimed.
The judge also considered letters sent by an accountant acting for the defendants in 2014 and 2015 proposing compromises. She ruled that the correspondence was open and could be considered, but did not treat it as confirming the accuracy of the bank’s calculations or proving that demand letters had been received.
The court did not decide whether the defendants had an arguable defence under the Statute of Limitations or whether the bank had properly served demands under the guarantees. Those questions were left for consideration after the claim is properly particularised.
The judge adjourned the matter rather than dismissing the proceedings. She gave the bank the option of applying to amend the special endorsement of claim with further details or remitting the matter to a plenary hearing. The case was to be listed for mention two weeks after judgment to address consequential matters and the final form of the order.