The High Court ruled that Allied Irish Banks plc and AIB Mortgage Bank were entitled to judgment against four defendants in a dispute over loans and guarantees. It rejected their arguments for a trial but did not enter final judgment at the hearing: the Bank was directed to file an affidavit setting out the sums due, and the matter was adjourned for one week.
The plaintiffs’ claims arose from nine facilities made available between 2001 and 2013 to sisters Bronwyn McGouran and Tanya McGouran. Their parents, Joseph and Ann McGouran, were sued as guarantors. The sisters did not dispute liability for six facilities. A fourth facility had been repaid in full after proceedings began. Their remaining challenge concerned two term facilities advanced in 2010 and extended in 2011.
The sisters argued that they were consumers under the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and that the Bank had not complied with requirements for copies of agreements and cooling-off rights. The judge said a bare assertion that they were consumers did not establish an arguable defence. She also concluded that the facilities’ dual purpose, including property investment in Spain, did not bring them within the consumer protections. In any event, she found the Bank had provided a 14-day cooling-off period and that the evidence showed the sisters had been handed copies of the executed agreements by their solicitors.
The parents argued that their guarantees covered only the 2010 facilities, that the Bank could not vary those facilities without releasing them, and that demands were defective because they were sent to an address other than their residence and referred to 2011 agreements. The judge rejected those arguments. She found the guarantees were continuing guarantees, allowed the Bank to vary credit without the guarantors’ consent, and that the 2011 letters extended the same facilities. She also found the guarantors had received the demands and that service at their residence was not required under the guarantee terms.
The judge therefore concluded that none of the four defendants had raised an arguable defence requiring a plenary hearing. The Bank was to provide updated sums due for each defendant before judgment was entered in accordance with the ruling.