The High Court set aside an order dismissing Allied Irish Banks plc’s claim against Margaret Likely as executrix of her late husband’s estate and granted judgment for the amount claimed. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 11 October 2016, records the claim as €1,544,927.32, plus interest.
The Master of the High Court had dismissed the claim in October 2014 on the basis that it had been pleaded against Ms Likely personally rather than in her capacity as executrix. The judge found the claim was clearly brought against her as executrix, as set out in the summons, and set aside that order.
AIB’s claim arose from guarantees James Likely gave for borrowing by two companies, and loans or credit facilities extended to him personally. The judgment describes the bank’s account of those transactions and the balances it said remained due. It records that the aggregate liability had initially been stated as €1,600,239.78, with payments and the proceeds of a life assurance policy reducing the personal account balance described in the judgment.
Ms Likely argued that a 2007 guarantee replaced an earlier guarantee for company borrowing. The court rejected that proposed defence, citing a clause stating that the later guarantee was additional to, rather than a replacement for, other security.
She also sought to rely on alleged losses in her husband’s pension investments as a set-off. Her affidavit alleged that Goodbody Stockbrokers recommended unsuitable investments and that AIB was connected to the advice and borrowing used to fund part of the investments. The court found that the material before it did not provide evidence beyond assertions to support negligence or breach of duty, or establish a recognisable basis for set-off against the guarantees. The judge said any cause of action appeared, if at all, primarily to lie against Goodbody.
The judgment records that Ms Likely acknowledged a debt was owed by the estate and had paid money from the sale of estate assets secured in AIB’s favour. She also raised concerns about a receiver’s involvement and the realisation of properties, which the judge said were not matters for these proceedings. The court noted that payments had been allowed for in reducing the liability and said further sums generated by the receiver would be taken into account where appropriate.
The judge concluded that judgment should be granted for the amount claimed. The judgment does not state the final sum in its concluding order separately from the claim amount given at the outset.