A Supreme Court judge has rejected Rory and Danny O'Brien's argument that Ulster Bank Ireland Limited lacked admissible evidence to obtain judgment against them for €888,920.89.
The High Court had entered judgment for the bank on 3 March 2014. The O'Briens appealed, arguing that the affidavit used to establish their debt was hearsay and did not satisfy technical requirements under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879.
Ms Justice Laffoy concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. She agreed with a separate judgment of Mr Justice Charleton and examined why the evidence was sufficient under the summary judgment procedure.
The bank's claim arose from loan facilities of €329,000 and €471,000 advanced under facility letters dated July 2004 and December 2005. The borrowers were said to be jointly and severally liable, meaning each could be pursued for the full debt. A repayment demand was made in February 2013.
The bank's grounding affidavit was sworn by Mary Murray, a senior relationship manager who said she had responsibility for the daily management of the O'Briens' loan facilities. She relied on her own knowledge and the bank's books and records. She exhibited the facility letters and demand letter and stated that €888,920.89 remained due.
The O'Briens did not file an affidavit disputing the debt or seek to cross-examine Ms Murray. Their challenge was instead confined to whether her evidence was legally admissible.
Ms Justice Laffoy held that Ms Murray could swear positively to the relevant facts and that her uncontradicted evidence established a prima facie case for judgment. The bank was proving a contractual debt through a knowledgeable senior employee, not seeking to make bank-book entries independently admissible under the 1879 Act.
She distinguished earlier cases where evidence came from employees of separate companies rather than the creditor bank itself. She also noted that the debt had continued to grow while the appeal proceeded.