The Court of Appeal has dismissed Arnold and James Fanning’s appeal against summary judgments for Allied Irish Banks plc, upholding awards of €250,000 against Sheila Fanning and €300,000 against James Fanning under personal guarantees for a company’s debt.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 16 January 2020, Mr Justice Noonan said the High Court was entitled to conclude that a May 2013 facility letter never took effect and that the earlier February 2011 facility remained in force. Justices Donnelly and Ní Raifeartaigh also sat on the appeal.
The bank’s claim concerned guarantees for Midland Web Printing Limited, a printing business in the Midlands. The 2011 sanction letter authorised overdrafts of €250,000 and €50,000. Sheila Fanning and her late husband, Arnold, had signed a €250,000 guarantee in 2008; James Fanning signed a separate guarantee capped at €300,000 in February 2011.
The court considered later facility letters. An October 2012 letter dealing with the €250,000 overdraft appeared not to have been executed by the company. A May 2013 letter proposed replacing the overdraft with a five-year loan, but the bank’s witness, Brian McGuinness, said the money was not drawn down because the letter omitted the word “supported” in describing the security. A June 2013 letter included that word, but the bank later told James Fanning it was out of date and no longer a valid offer or legal agreement.
Noonan J said the corrected June letter corroborated the evidence that the May letter had not become operative. The company’s reliance on the June letter in correspondence also supported that conclusion. He found ample evidence for the High Court’s view that the May facility did not take effect.
Sheila Fanning had raised several defences in the High Court, including lack of recollection of signing the guarantee, an alleged cross-claim over an investment, and a complaint about an insurance policy used as security. Those points were later abandoned. The appeal focused on the effect of the successive facility letters. The appellants’ separate arguments about proving the company debt and a resulting trust could not be entertained because they had not been grounds of appeal or argued in the High Court; the court also said the debt evidence was not a bare assertion.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment records that the High Court had granted summary judgment against Sheila and James Fanning; the Court of Appeal did not make a new award.