The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael Wymes’s appeal against an order requiring him to pay Thomas J. Roche €1,707,119 as a contribution towards settlements of bank debts guaranteed by both men for Bula Limited.
In a judgment delivered on 21 July 2017, Ms Justice O’Malley said Wymes had not established an error that justified interfering with the High Court decision. The appeal concerned the contribution award made by Mr Justice MacMenamin in Roche v Wymes [2008] IEHC 141.
The dispute arose from three loans taken out by Bula in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Roche, Wymes, Roche’s late father and Richard Wood gave personal guarantees. After Bula could not meet repayments, the banks pursued the guarantors. Roche and his father’s estate settled with Ulster for €1.4 million in March 2004, and Roche and the estate’s executors settled with National Irish Bank (NIB) for €9 million in June that year.
The settlements were reached without consulting Wymes. He argued that Roche had not proved the payments discharged the common debts, that limitation rules barred the claims, and that he should receive credit for other payments. He also challenged the trial judge’s assessment of his credibility and said the settlements might have been improved had he been consulted.
The Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s findings. It accepted that the NIB settlement extinguished Wymes’s liability to that bank and that the payment’s treatment in the bank’s accounts did not alter that conclusion. Wymes had also paid Ulster €589,841.84 in 2006 to clear the amount claimed against him; the trial judge treated this as exceeding his proportionate share by €124,381. That sum was credited against the amount due in respect of NIB.
The trial judge calculated the shared debt at €7.326 million, making Wymes’s quarter share €1,831,500, then deducted the Ulster overpayment to reach the total award. The Supreme Court found no basis to disturb the rulings on disputed earlier payments or the temporary limits Wymes said applied to Roche’s mortgage liability.
O’Malley J. also rejected the argument that the lack of advance consultation defeated the contribution claim. The High Court had found Roche’s settlements were made under legal pressure after rigorous negotiations, and the Supreme Court said the proposed grounds for a better deal had been rejected on credible evidence. The appeal was dismissed; the judgment records no change to the High Court award.