The High Court has refused Allied Irish Banks plc’s application for summary judgment on a disputed part of a €235,539.34 claim against Harold Lynch and Beth Haughton, finding they had an arguable defence that should be heard at a plenary hearing.
Mr Justice MacGrath gave judgment on 5 February 2019. He said the bank was entitled to judgment for amounts the defendants did not contest, but did not specify the total uncontested sum in the judgment.
The bank also sought €16,133.14 from Kierview Limited. Its claim against Lynch and Haughton arose from loans and guarantees. The defendants accepted liability for the company’s overdraft debt, their guarantees relating to that debt, and a separate loan account balance of €60,775.28 plus continuing interest from 18 June 2018.
The dispute concerned two loan agreements made in March 2010, for €94,500 and €49,000. The bank said they were for debt consolidation and sought repayment after the borrowers defaulted. The agreements required certain accounts and facilities, including existing AIB F&L facilities associated with Page Services Limited, to be cleared when the loans were drawn down.
Lynch and Haughton said they signed the agreements because a bank representative told them they were personally responsible for company debts. Lynch identified the alleged representative as an accounts manager at the bank’s Patrick Street branch in Cork. They said they had not previously guaranteed the relevant company liabilities and would not otherwise have borrowed personally to pay them. They also said they had received no legal advice before signing.
The bank disputed that account, arguing that the defence was a late assertion. The judge noted that the borrowers had made repayments for at least three years and had not raised the alleged misunderstanding with the bank before the proceedings. He also noted they did not contact Page Services Limited’s liquidator after the court gave them an opportunity to seek information about the company’s accounts.
However, the judge said a summary judgment hearing was not the place to resolve conflicting evidence or determine credibility. Although he had reservations about the strength of the defence, he was not satisfied it could safely be ruled out as unarguable. He refused summary judgment on the disputed part, leaving the alleged misrepresentation to be argued at a plenary hearing. The ruling did not determine whether the allegation was true.