The High Court has sent Allied Irish Banks plc’s claim against Jimmy and Breda Coen to a plenary hearing, finding that the bank’s application for summary judgment could not be fairly decided on the evidence before it.
In a judgment delivered on 21 February 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett said there were material, unexplained problems with the bank’s account of the loans and the €446,408.52 it claimed was due. The court refused to resolve those issues through the summary process. It did not determine the final amount owed or whether the Coens’ defences would succeed.
AIB’s 2015 claim referred to three advances made in April 2002: €242,000 for a land purchase, €26,958 repayable from the administration of an estate, and €6,176 for a tractor purchase. The bank’s grounding affidavit, however, described the €446,408.52 claim as arising from the €242,000 facility alone. The judge said AIB had not explained the discrepancy.
The demand letter also gave two different figures for the same date: an account balance of €337,959.19 and a larger sum of €442,693.28 said to be owed. The judge said it was only a guess that the difference reflected interest, and summary judgment could not rest on a guess.
The documents exhibited as letters of sanction appeared to be unsigned drafts, were not on AIB headed paper, and had no accompanying evidence that they were issued to the Coens. The judge also said the bank statements related to two different accounts and did not explain how the listed transactions matched the advances claimed. He said the evidence did not allow the court to determine which loans had been drawn down, or on what terms.
The defendants raised possible limitation and consumer-credit issues. AIB relied on a solicitor’s letter from December 2013 as a fresh acknowledgement of debt. The Coens intended to argue that the letter was sent “without prejudice”; the judgment also records uncertainty over whether the solicitor acted for Mrs Coen. Mr Coen’s affidavit acknowledged some level of debt, but said it was far below the bank’s figure.
Justice Barrett said the case raised factual and legal issues requiring fuller consideration. He ordered that the matter proceed to plenary hearing, where those issues can be tried. The ruling was a decision on the suitability of summary judgment, not a final determination of the debt claim.