The Supreme Court has upheld Ulster Bank’s €888,920.89 judgment against Rory O’Brien and Danny O’Brien in a case examining how banks can prove unpaid loans where borrowers do not dispute the debt.
Ulster Bank issued summary proceedings in August 2013 arising from two loan facilities connected with purchases of development land in County Offaly. The first facility, agreed in 2004, was for €329,000. A second, agreed in 2005, was for €471,000.
The bank relied on an affidavit from senior relationship manager Mary Murray, loan documentation, computer records and a February 2013 demand letter. The demand stated that €353,053.91 was outstanding under the 2004 facility, €500,431.49 under the 2005 facility and a further €19,374.58 in accrued interest.
Neither the demand letter nor Murray’s affidavit was answered by Rory or Danny O’Brien.
The Master of the High Court initially refused summary judgment, accepting an argument that the bank’s affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay. Ulster Bank appealed, and in March 2014 Mr Justice Hedigan reversed that decision and entered judgment against the two men.
Their Supreme Court appeal focused on whether the bank had produced admissible evidence of the loans and default without formally relying on the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879.
Mr Justice Charleton said business records do not automatically escape the hearsay rule simply because they appear reliable. However, the case could be resolved on a different basis.
The court held that silence can, in appropriate circumstances, amount to an admission. In a commercial relationship, where a detailed demand backed by documentation would reasonably be expected to provoke a denial if incorrect, failure to respond can be evidentially significant.
Here, the loan documents, demand letter and sworn affidavit carried indicators of reliability, while the borrowers made no factual denial of the debt. The Supreme Court therefore found no fault in the High Court’s approach and dismissed the appeal.