The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael and Brigid Quinn’s appeal against a High Court order granting Northern Bank Limited, trading as Danske Bank, summary judgment for STG£500,000 plus interest from 3 December 2012. The appeal was decided by Ms Justice Irvine, with Mr Justice Peart and Mr Justice Cregan also on the panel. The judgment was delivered on 18 March 2016.
The bank’s claim was based on a written guarantee dated 27 April 2004. It said the guarantee covered liabilities of Cloughvalley Stores (N.I.) Ltd, whose directors were the Quinns. The bank told the High Court that Cloughvalley owed it STG£4,595,752.93 as of 18 October 2011, and that demands for payment under the guarantee had not been met.
The Quinns raised a number of potential defences, including that the case belonged in Northern Ireland, the guarantee lacked consideration or was signed without independent legal advice, and the claim was out of time. They also argued that the bank had not provided documents they needed, and that the High Court should have allowed them to question the bank’s affidavit witnesses.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It held that the proceedings could be brought in this jurisdiction because the claim was against the Quinns personally and they resided here. Northern Ireland connections—including the company’s incorporation and trading, the branch where the guarantee was signed, and other proceedings there—did not alter that conclusion. The court also said a clause selecting Northern Irish law would determine which law applied, not where proceedings could be brought.
The judgment said the guarantee identified the bank, Cloughvalley and the Quinns, and that the bank’s promise to provide or continue credit to Cloughvalley was sufficient consideration. The Quinns had signed letters recommending independent legal advice and confirming they did not wish to obtain it; the court found no credible basis to argue that the guarantee was unenforceable for lack of advice. It also found the claim sufficiently particularised and rejected the limitation argument, noting that the first demand to the Quinns was made on 17 October 2011.
The court said prior demand to Cloughvalley was not required by the guarantee, although the bank had produced evidence of a demand to the company. It also held that Cloughvalley’s asset sale did not prevent the bank pursuing the guarantors. The administrator had realised STG£600,000, but the court said that did not reduce the company’s liabilities below the STG£500,000 guarantee limit.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court was entitled to refuse cross-examination and proceed on the affidavit evidence. It found no demonstrated injustice from the documents the Quinns sought and held that they had not shown an arguable defence warranting a full hearing. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s summary judgment in place.