The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment for €833,289.60 against Raymond McCarthy in respect of a loan account and an overdraft account connected with the Continental Bar in Portarlington, County Laois.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 29 March 2019. The bank had already obtained judgment against the first defendant, Gerard Mahon. McCarthy, who represented himself, did not dispute that the money had been borrowed from AIB and remained unpaid. He opposed the bank’s application for summary judgment on several grounds.
McCarthy said that in 2008, after he and Mahon encountered difficulties with the Revenue Commissioners, they agreed with AIB that Mahon would take over the bar and the borrowings, leaving McCarthy with no further liability. He also argued that the summary summons had been served outside the permitted period and that the claim was statute-barred.
The judge rejected both procedural defences. Although the summons was dated 1 July 2015 and McCarthy was served in July 2017, it had been extended for six months from 22 June 2017, the court said. On limitation, the judgment said there was no evidence that a demand had been made in 2008. It identified 5 December 2014 as the earliest demand and found that date was within the six-year period.
The court also found that McCarthy had not produced evidence of an agreement with AIB to release him from liability. The document he relied on, dated 18 December 2008 and signed by McCarthy and Mahon, recorded an agreement between the two men that Mahon would take over the business debts and seek to have the licensed premises transferred into his name for nominal consideration. The judge said the document was not signed by AIB and did not refer to the alleged oral agreement with the bank.
Applying the test of whether there was a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence, the judge concluded that McCarthy’s claim of release from liability was a mere assertion. The court therefore granted summary judgment against McCarthy. The judgment does not state that the claim against Mahon was reconsidered at this hearing.