The High Court has ordered a guarantor to provide further particulars and make discovery in a dispute with Danske Bank A/S, trading as National Irish Bank, over a guarantee connected to loans to Rockridge Developments Limited.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy’s judgment, dated 17 November 2011, concerned two motions brought by the bank against Bridget Dunne-Keaveney. The bank sought answers to specified questions and documents relating to the guarantee. Its claim against her was to proceed by plenary hearing; the court’s ruling addressed pre-trial information and document disclosure, not the merits of the guarantee dispute.
The bank had offered Rockridge a €7.9 million bridging facility in 2006 to acquire a site at Glenamuck Road, Carrickmines. The facility letter required a guarantee from Bridget Keaveney, also known as Bridget Dunne, supported by a first legal mortgage over an investment property in Lucan. A further facility followed in 2007.
Dunne-Keaveney’s defence was that she understood her liability to be limited to the value of that property and that the guarantee was intended only to support the mortgage. She denied agreeing to guarantee all of Rockridge’s debt, said she had not received independent legal advice, and pleaded mistake and representations by the bank. She counterclaimed for declarations concerning the guarantee and damages for alleged emotional distress. These were pleaded claims, not findings made in this ruling.
The court granted the bank’s request for particulars 4, 6 and 7. These concern who was present when the guarantee was signed, whether she had independent legal advice, and what advice she received from solicitors before signing. The judge rejected other particulars in dispute, finding some were matters for evidence at trial or overlapped with other requests.
The court also ordered discovery in both requested categories: documents relating to the retention of Matheson Ormsby Prentice solicitors in connection with the guarantee, and documents concerning Dunne-Keaveney’s intention in agreeing to provide it. The judgment held that the requested material was not protected by privilege in the circumstances described and was relevant to issues for trial.
The order did not determine whether the guarantee was limited to the mortgaged property or whether Dunne-Keaveney was liable for the company’s debt. A prior consent judgment had been entered against Rockridge and Michael Keaveney in 2010; that earlier order was separate from the present rulings on particulars and discovery.