The Court of Appeal has allowed a builder’s appeal against a High Court order granting Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Limited summary judgment for €68,595.78. The appeal court found that Frank (Orse Frankie) McLoughlin had shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence. It did not decide whether he or his company owed the disputed amount.
The claim arose from building supplies allegedly provided under an agreement from February 2001. The society sought €68,670.18, also relying on a debt repayment plan. It said McLoughlin had personally agreed in August 2008 to repay arrears of €76,000 in monthly instalments of €7,000. According to the society’s affidavit, it received one payment under the plan, by cheque drawn on McLoughlin Developments Limited’s account, and later sent a demand letter after default.
McLoughlin maintained that the post-January 2007 trading relationship was with his company, now in voluntary liquidation, and that he had not personally guaranteed its liabilities. He said he had paid off his personal account in February 2007, that later invoices and payments were associated with the company, and that he signed the repayment plan as the company’s agent. The society disputed that account, pointing to its unchanged customer account number and monthly statements addressed to McLoughlin personally.
The High Court granted judgment on 13 January 2011, finding McLoughlin had not established a bona fide defence. It considered the invoice names tenuous support for his position and concluded that he signed the repayment plan personally.
On appeal, the court reviewed the affidavit evidence and submissions under the summary judgment test: whether the defendant had a fair or reasonable probability of a real defence. It cited invoices mostly addressed to “McLoughlin Developments,” company-account cheques, evidence of the earlier personal account’s payment, and the later €7,500 company cheque accepted by the society. The court said this material gave evidential weight to McLoughlin’s position.
The court acknowledged that significant evidence supported the society’s claim. But it said the appeal concerned only whether McLoughlin had produced enough credible evidence to defend the case. It considered discovery of documents could clarify or resolve the disputed relationship and concluded that granting judgment before that process would be premature and unjust. The appeal was allowed; the underlying liability was not determined in this judgment.