The High Court has allowed Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank to amend its special indorsement of claim in proceedings against Joseph O’Malley, following a Supreme Court decision that set aside an earlier summary judgment against him.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said the amendment could help determine the real issues between the parties and that he could see no prejudice to Mr O’Malley, still less irreparable prejudice. The ruling decides the bank’s application to amend its claim; it does not determine whether the alleged loan debt is owed.
The bank alleges that a loan facility of €225,000 was entered into in or about October 2008 for an 18-year term, with a legal charge over lands in County Mayo. It says full payments ceased in or about November 2011. A summary summons issued in January 2014 seeking more than €225,000. In July that year, the High Court granted summary judgment for more than €221,000, with execution stayed for six months.
Mr O’Malley appealed. In November 2019, the Supreme Court set aside the orders obtained against him and remitted the matter to the High Court so the bank could apply to amend its claim in light of that judgment.
The bank’s amendment motion issued in October 2021 and came before the High Court in July 2022. Its solicitor attributed delay to reconsidering how debt proceedings should be pleaded and evidenced after the Supreme Court ruling, and to a decision not to progress such cases during the Covid emergency. The judge said the bank’s affidavit did not adequately explain its actions and questioned further gaps in the timeline. He said banks should proceed promptly because debt recovery affects people under stress.
Mr O’Malley’s solicitor argued that the bank should have acted sooner and that the delay was unfair. The judge nevertheless concluded that even if the unexplained delay were attributed entirely to the bank, it did not establish prejudice that justified refusing the amendment. He also said the effect of the amendments on Mr O’Malley’s chances of success was not the relevant kind of prejudice for this application.
The court granted the orders sought at points one and two of the motion. It said counsel could attend later to decide how much time the bank would have to deliver the amended summary summons.