The High Court has proposed summary judgment of €1,170,359.94 against Jeremy Kenny and Sharon Kenny in a loan case brought by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC. The court has not yet recorded a final order: at the end of her ruling, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan said she proposed to grant judgment and would hear the parties on consequential matters.
The ruling, delivered on 17 February 2023, dealt with two motions heard together: Pepper Finance’s application for summary judgment and the Kennys’ application to set aside an earlier order substituting Pepper Finance for Tanager DAC as plaintiff. The defendants appeared without lawyers; Jeremy Kenny made legal submissions.
The loan agreement was made with Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited in 2005. The judgment records that the defendants did not dispute entering the loan, making no monthly repayments, or receiving default and demand correspondence. The sum claimed comprised €800,000 principal and €370,359.94 interest. The defendants did not dispute the interest calculation or deny receiving account statements showing the interest and applicable rates.
The Kennys objected that records supporting the claim were copies and hearsay. They also relied on a 2017 letter purporting to cancel the contract under regulations governing contracts negotiated away from business premises. The judge found that the 2020 Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act provided for the business records’ admissibility and addressed the objection to copies. She said the defendants had not supplied evidence that the loan was made in circumstances bringing it within the cancellation regulations. The loan offer had been accepted after an opportunity to seek legal advice, with the acceptance signed before a solicitor, the ruling said.
The defendants also sought to undo the November 2021 order substituting Pepper Finance as plaintiff, arguing that an affidavit’s reference to a “deceased” loan account falsely suggested they had died. Justice Phelan found the word had been used once in describing an exhibit, while the affidavit and accompanying correspondence made clear the defendants were alive. She concluded the error could not have misled the judge or affected the substitution order, and found no proper basis to set it aside.
The judge said she had considered whether any contract term appeared unfair under consumer protection rules and could not discern one that had operated unfairly in the proceedings. She concluded the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the defendants had not identified an arguable defence. The ruling proposed judgment for the claimed sum; consequential matters remained to be heard.