The High Court has declined Allied Irish Banks plc’s application for summary judgment against an anonymised defendant over a €65,000 personal guarantee, sending the application to a plenary hearing instead.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said the court could not conclude that it was “very clear” the defendant had no case or that there were no issues requiring trial. The decision did not determine whether the bank had made the alleged promise or whether the defendant’s promissory estoppel argument would succeed.
The judgment concerns a joint and several guarantee executed by the defendant and her husband on 8 April 2002 in favour of Limited Company Z. It was capped at €65,000. The bank sought judgment against her for that sum less €825 she had paid after demand. Her husband had previously consented to an order against him for €64,900.
The defendant argued that a telephone conversation with an AIB employee on 30 August 2010 amounted to a promise that, if she paid half, she would be released from liability. She said she made notes during the call, including the words: “If I pay ½ then I am out”. AIB had no recording of the call. A note later prepared by the bank official did not mention that statement, and the parties disputed whether that note was complete.
The defendant contended that the alleged promise gave rise to promissory estoppel, preventing the bank from pursuing her for the full guaranteed amount. The judge said whether the representation was made, and whether the argument would succeed under Irish law, remained matters for the plenary hearing.
Applying the Supreme Court’s approach in Aer Rianta c.p.t. v. Ryanair Limited and the guidance in Harrisrange Ltd. v. Duncan, the court said the threshold for sending the case to trial was low. It declined summary judgment, with some hesitation, and referred the application to plenary hearing. The ruling left the underlying guarantee claim and the defendant’s asserted defence unresolved.