The Supreme Court has dismissed Daniel and Sylvia Donohoe’s appeal against a High Court judgment ordering them to pay Allied Irish Banks (AIB) €563,242.56, plus costs. The appeal concerned a summary judgment for a debt the court found had no arguable defence raised against it; the Supreme Court upheld the High Court order.
The bank said the couple owed €564,532.15 across two accounts as of 15 March 2012. After a repayment of €1,289.59, the High Court entered judgment for the remaining €563,242.56 in February 2014. AIB had sought the money through summary proceedings, which allow judgment where a debt is quantifiable and the defendant has no valid defence.
The accounts arose from loans and facilities that AIB said were advanced to the couple personally and later restructured. The Supreme Court noted that the bank’s initial evidence did not explain the earlier accounts and restructuring. It said a later affidavit, filed during the appeal, provided a comprehensive account of the sums and transactions, and that this background should have been supplied at the outset.
The Donohoes argued, among other things, that they had been incorrectly named, had not received a demand letter, and lacked access to original loan documents and account records. In later submissions, Mr Donohoe claimed the money related to his company, Kilmyshall Aggregates Ltd, and alleged that proceeds from property sales had not been properly accounted for. These were the appellants’ claims, not findings by the court. The Supreme Court said the company argument had not been raised in the High Court and found no compelling evidence to support it.
The court concluded that the High Court judge was entitled to use summary procedure because the appellants had not presented a bona fide defence. It rejected their request to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding no European-law issue requiring a reference. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order upheld; the judgment does not impose a new payment amount.