The High Court granted Danske Bank A/S summary judgment for €3,474,972.77 against Niall Tinney, finding that he had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of having a real defence to the bank’s claim under a personal guarantee.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 4 December 2015. The bank claimed the money under a deed of guarantee and indemnity signed by Mr Tinney on 12 September 2011. It related to a €3.47 million loan facility provided to Tinney Investment Services, a company owned by him, to fund the purchase of his interest in Bloxham Stockbrokers and repay existing borrowing.
The bank demanded payment under the guarantee in May 2012. Mr Tinney argued that his decision to enter the guarantee followed alleged misrepresentation in Bloxham’s accounts by his partner, Tadhg Gunnell. He contended that the bank knew, or should have known, of the alleged fraud, and that Mr Gunnell had acted as the bank’s agent in arranging the financing. He also claimed the bank had a duty to advise him about the restructuring and the risks of giving a personal guarantee.
The judge said Mr Tinney’s affidavits did not provide sufficient evidence that the bank knew or ought to have known of alleged fraud or accounting negligence. The judgment records that Mr Tinney disavowed any allegation that the bank itself acted dishonestly. The judge also found no credible evidence that the bank had retained Mr Gunnell as its agent or had made a factual misrepresentation that induced the guarantee. The guarantee stated that Mr Tinney had not relied on a bank representation and had made his own assessment of the borrower’s financial condition.
Mr Tinney also argued that a loan account created after the demand represented a new liability outside the guarantee. The judge accepted the bank’s explanation that transferring the debt to its internal collection system was an accounting step and did not alter the underlying liability. Other disputes between the Bloxham liquidator and the bank’s receivers concerned separate proceedings and, the judge held, did not provide a defence to the guarantee claim.
The court concluded that the affidavits disclosed no material factual issue requiring a trial and that the defendant had not met the low threshold for leave to defend. It held that the bank had established its entitlement to summary judgment for the amount claimed. The judgment does not determine the separate disputes about Bloxham’s assets and the receivership.