The High Court has refused the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland’s application for final judgment against the personal representatives of the late Christy O’Connor, finding they may have a defence to the bank’s claim over loans used to buy rental properties.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2022, Ms Justice Bolger referred the matter for a plenary hearing. The court did not decide whether the defendants’ allegations were true or whether they had a viable counterclaim. It said the origin and accuracy of a disputed property valuation could give rise to a defence, and that discovery and oral evidence at trial might improve the defendants’ position.
The bank’s special summons, issued in December 2017, sought judgment for loans taken out by the late Mr O’Connor. The judgment records that the parties did not dispute that the money was due. The dispute concerned the bank’s handling of the sale of number 10 Mount Wolseley Court, Tullow, County Carlow, and its alleged effect on the defendants’ attempts to sell adjoining numbers 11 and 12.
The defendants say the bank relied on a forged valuation that placed number 10 at €190,000 to €200,000, below an earlier €240,000 valuation from REA Dawson. The disputed report attributed a lower sale price to a local comparator property and recommended auction, unlike the earlier report. The court noted that the disputed report had no cover letter or email exhibited, and that the bank had not shown enquiries into the discrepancies. The bank relied on a later email exchange in which the valuer confirmed the house had three bathrooms, arguing that this supported the report’s authenticity.
The receiver and bank set a €205,000 guide price for number 10. The defendants say that price undermined a proposed €252,000 sale of number 12, which was withdrawn; they provided no documentary evidence of that alleged agreement. Numbers 11 and 12 later sold for €255,000 and €240,000 respectively. Number 10 sold for €215,000 in December 2018, after the bank accepted an offer described by the valuer as the best price reasonably obtainable.
The bank argued that the later sales of numbers 11 and 12 neutralised any adverse effect on the defendants. The court said the disputed valuation was relevant to the receiver’s recommendation and identified possible further documents and witness evidence, including evidence from the valuers and a property-price expert.
The judge’s indicative view was that the costs of the application should be reserved to the trial judge, subject to further submissions. The case was listed for mention on 21 July 2022 for costs and final orders.