The High Court has found that Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank did not prove that Brian Murray signed disputed documents for loans secured against the Murrays’ home. But it concluded that he had benefited from the €200,000 advanced in 2007 and should repay the capital, without interest.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2019, Ms Justice Baker said the case concerned a debt claim and a significant dispute about the execution of loan documents. The bank sought €194,433.53 plus interest. Its alternative claims included damages for breach of contract, money had and received, and conversion.
Mr Murray, a commercial fisherman from Killybegs, denied signing documents for a €40,000 loan in 2003 and a €200,000 facility in 2007. He said his wife had forged his signature without authority. She did not give evidence, and the bank did not argue that she had acted as his agent. Neither side called handwriting evidence.
The judge found that Mr Murray had not signed the 2003 loan offer or several documents in the mortgage pack, and that he had not signed the 2007 offer or certain related documents. She said the witnesses’ poor recollections and the circumstances surrounding the documents meant that witnessing was not a reliable indication that signatures had been made in their presence. The court also found that the purported charge over the jointly owned family home was void under the Family Home Protection Act because Mr Murray had not signed it. The judgment treats the 2003 loan as repaid.
For the 2007 advances, however, the judge found that €200,000 had been paid in five tranches into the couple’s joint current account between 2007 and 2009, and that both defendants benefited from the money. The funds were used for purposes including household spending, tax payments and clearing the earlier loan. Mr Murray acknowledged that he had benefited from some of the advances.
The court considered his arguments that he lacked knowledge of the drawdowns and that repayment would be unfair. It found he knew generally that borrowing had been agreed for family purposes and that he benefited from the money. The judge also concluded that the Consumer Credit Act’s saver provision permitted the court to dispense with certain unmet requirements in this case.
The judge did not award interest, saying the bank had not established a basis for the claim or how the applicable rate should be assessed. She proposed judgment against Mr Murray for the sum claimed less interest. As Mrs Murray had not defended the case with evidence, the judge proposed judgment against her for the full amount claimed. The court reserved the precise amount of Mr Murray’s judgment and the handling of his negligence counterclaim for further submissions.