The High Court has ruled that Allied Irish Banks plc is entitled to summary judgment of €387,500.67 against Jeremiah Ahern and Veronica Ellen Ahern, also known as Veronica Ellen O’Reilly, jointly and severally. The ruling followed an application over credit facilities and guarantees linked to three accounts.
Mr Justice Barr, delivering judgment electronically on 6 May 2021, rejected the defendants’ request to have the case sent to a plenary hearing. He found that they had not shown an arguable defence to the bank’s claim, including to any part of the amount sought.
The bank’s claim concerned a €150,000 credit facility associated with the 193 account, a €200,000 facility for Ahern Livestock Services Limited, and a €50,000 overdraft facility associated with the first defendant. The bank also relied on guarantees signed in 2008. Its evidence put the amount due at €387,500.67.
The defendants argued that they had not accepted the December 2012 facility letters, that the claim concerning the 193 account was out of time, and that the amended summons did not adequately explain the sums claimed. The second defendant also said a transfer into the 193 account came from a joint account without her consent, and argued that guarantees she had signed were unenforceable because she had not received independent legal advice.
The judge found that the 2012 letters rolled over existing facilities and that the defendants’ conduct showed acceptance of their terms. He held that the claim on the 193 account arose after the bank demanded repayment in July 2014 and the defendants failed to pay; a further demand followed in October 2016. The claim was issued in April 2017, within six years of those events. He also found that account statements showed payments into the account during the relevant six-year period.
On the transfer objection, the court accepted the bank’s evidence that funds were transferred from the joint account to the first defendant’s current account. Any claim by the second defendant over those transfers, the judge said, would be against the first defendant and would not provide a defence to the bank’s claim.
The court held that the amended summons adequately referred to account statements previously provided to the defendants, which detailed principal and interest. It also rejected the argument that lack of independent legal advice alone made the guarantees unenforceable, noting that the guarantees advised the guarantor to seek such advice.
The court said the parties had two weeks to make brief written submissions on the final order, costs and any ancillary matters. The judgment did not determine those matters in the text provided.