The High Court has refused Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd’s application for final judgment of €1 million against Mary Geary and Breeta (otherwise Bridget) Geary, sending the dispute to a plenary hearing where the facts can be examined further.
The bank claimed the sisters were liable as guarantors of Hy-Many (Pontoon) Ltd, which owned and operated the Pontoon Bridge Hotel in Co Mayo. It said a continuing guarantee dated 3 March 2005 was capped at €1 million. The bank had advanced the company €5.5 million for working capital and hotel extension investment. After the company defaulted, the bank demanded more than €5.2 million from it and called on the sisters to meet the guarantee.
The sisters disputed that they knowingly signed a guarantee. In affidavits, they said they believed they were assigning life assurance policies worth €500,000 each as security for company borrowing. They said they had obtained the policies shortly before a meeting with the bank’s branch manager, Pat Holmes, whom they knew and trusted. They alleged they were not told a personal guarantee was required, were shown only the signature page, and did not see the other pages of the document. Their solicitors had previously alleged that their signatures were procured by presenting documents as life policy assignments.
The bank relied on the guarantee document and a 2010 facility letter that identified a joint and separate €1 million guarantee as security. It argued that the sisters could not establish the elements of a non est factum defence, including that they took reasonable care before signing. But the evidence filed for the bank did not address their account of how the signatures were obtained.
The judgment records that the Master had struck out the bank’s claim after refusing an adjournment to allow a supplemental affidavit. The bank then asked the High Court to set that order aside and grant liberty to enter final judgment. The defendants accepted that the Master lacked power to strike out a contested claim for a liquidated sum.
Justice Fullam said the summary judgment threshold required the court to consider the whole situation and grant leave to defend where a fair or reasonable probability of a real defence existed. The sisters’ account was supported by evidence that they had sought and obtained separate life cover in early February 2005, consistent with their explanation. The bank had been on notice of their central allegation since 2013 but had not filed evidence rebutting it.
The court was therefore not satisfied that it could exclude a real or bona fide defence and said it would not be just to grant final judgment. It remitted the matter to a plenary hearing, where discovery may clarify the facts. The court did not determine whether the sisters were liable under the guarantee.