The High Court refused Bank of Ireland’s application for summary judgment against Gerry Ward over two mortgage loans, finding that the bank had not provided a clear account of how it calculated the sums claimed. The court gave the bank liberty to apply to amend its claim and submit further evidence addressing the gap.
Mr Justice MacGrath delivered the judgment on 11 March 2020. The bank sought €776,024.34 plus continuing interest, alleging that Mr Ward owed money on loans originally provided by Irish Civil Service Building Society (ICS). The loans were for €510,000 and €220,000. The bank became successor to the relevant ICS assets and liabilities in 2014.
The judgment records that the bank’s evidence set out loan offers, demands for repayment, account material and calculations of interest. The bank’s case was that Mr Ward had defaulted on both loans. Mr Ward denied liability and disputed the figures, arguing, among other things, that the sums were not properly established as liquidated amounts. He also raised other objections, including a Bill of Exchange argument.
The judge considered the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in *Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v O’Malley*, which requires a plaintiff seeking summary judgment first to provide enough evidence to establish a prima facie debt. The court then considers whether the defendant has an arguable defence. The bank’s application failed at the first stage, so the judge did not decide whether Mr Ward had an arguable defence or determine his other objections.
The summons gave details of the loan facilities and stated the amounts claimed. But the judge found it did not explain how the principal sums had been calculated, and did not refer to a statement of account that might supply that explanation. The loan offers and demand letters identified amounts owed at particular dates, but did not set out the method used to reach those amounts. Considering the pleadings and supporting documents together, the judge concluded that they did not give a straightforward account of the calculation sufficient to establish the debt on a prima facie basis.
The judgment therefore refused the summary judgment application. It did not dismiss the underlying claim: the bank was given liberty to apply to amend the summons and provide further evidence to fill the identified evidential gap.