The High Court has refused to dismiss Frank and Lorna Burke’s claim against Anglo Irish Bank over an alleged failure to provide funding for a planned purchase of six sites in Kinvara, County Galway. The ruling leaves the claim to proceed; it does not decide whether the bank breached a contract or whether the Burkes are entitled to damages.
The bank sought to have the proceedings struck out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. It argued that the Burkes had no contracts with the bank and, alternatively, that a condition for drawing down further funding had not been met. The bank had initially sought other relief, including a preliminary issue on the plaintiffs’ interest in the contracts, but pursued only the inherent-jurisdiction application.
The Burkes’ statement of claim says they agreed in December 2002 to borrow €546,000 to buy the sites, but that only €54,000 was advanced. They allege the bank wrongfully failed to provide the balance, leaving them unable to complete the purchase and causing loss. The bank disputed that account.
The judgment describes loan documents addressed to Burdale Limited, including acceptances and guarantees signed by one or both plaintiffs on the company’s behalf. The bank’s affidavits said Frank Burke proposed Burdale as the borrowing vehicle. Burke disputed that, saying the bank’s area manager suggested using a company and came up with the name. The judgment also recounts later documents referring to Burco Properties Limited and a dispute about how that company became involved.
The court said the documents could create “formidable obstacles” for the plaintiffs at trial. But it also noted that Burdale Limited did not exist in December 2002, and neither Burdale nor Burco Properties Limited existed when a further facility letter issued in September 2003. Those circumstances, alongside contested evidence about the parties’ dealings, meant the court could not be confident the claim must fail.
The judge also considered the bank’s argument that a condition precedent to further funding had not been satisfied. That issue, too, could create difficulties at trial, including arguments about the terms of any contract and whether it was later varied. But the court said disputed factual issues had to be resolved in the plaintiffs’ favour at this stage. It therefore declined to exercise its jurisdiction to dismiss the proceedings. The judgment did not determine the underlying contractual dispute.