The High Court has proposed setting aside a €144,901.11 default judgment obtained by the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland against Donal McNeela, after finding he had a real prospect of establishing that the bank’s claim lacked sufficient particulars.
Mr Justice MacGrath’s judgment does not finally decide that the pleading failed to comply with the rules. The court invited submissions on whether conditions should attach to setting aside the judgment and on legal costs. The bank may also apply to amend its pleadings.
The bank had obtained judgment in the Central Office on 15 May 2018 after Mr McNeela did not enter an appearance to a summary summons. The claim related to a term loan and a current account. The judgment was for €144,901.11, with €416 in costs.
Mr McNeela applied to set the judgment aside, saying he had been taken by surprise and disputing the claim. The judge found that the summons had been served in accordance with an earlier order for substituted service, and that the default judgment had been regularly obtained. He rejected Mr McNeela’s contention that it had been obtained by surprise. The court also found that delay in bringing the application did not justify refusing it.
Because the judgment was regular, the court considered whether the proposed defence had a real prospect of success. It rejected the argument that the amount claimed was not a liquidated sum. It did not decide whether Mr McNeela’s other proposed defences had such a prospect.
The issue that met the threshold concerned the detail in the bank’s claim. The summons identified two account numbers and gave principal amounts for each, but did not break down the total between principal and interest or specify the interest rates used. The judge concluded there was a real prospect that Mr McNeela could establish that the claim did not meet the pleading requirements in the case law applicable before a later Supreme Court decision.
The court said it would be unjust to apply that later decision retrospectively to a judgment obtained about 18 months earlier. Its proposed order instead rested on the real prospect of a defence under the earlier case law. The judge invited the bank to send any submissions on terms to Mr McNeela within 21 days, with a further 21 days for Mr McNeela to reply, unless the parties agreed or the court ordered otherwise.