Judgment: 2016-04-12 · Court archive

High Court grants AIB summary judgment for €2.77m against Faheys

The court found the defendants had not raised an arguable defence to the bank’s claim over two commercial loan facilities.

High Court · [2016] IEHC 182

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Allied Irish Banks plc (Plaintiff)
  • Liam Fahey
  • Finola Fahey (Defendant)
What

The court found the defendants had not raised an arguable defence to the bank’s claim over two commercial loan facilities.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Douglas, Cork
  • Inchydoney
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment for €2,771,745.27 against Liam Fahey and Finola Fahey over two loan facilities, finding that the defendants had not raised an arguable or credible defence.

The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment for €2,771,745.27 against Liam Fahey and Finola Fahey over two loan facilities, finding that the defendants had not raised an arguable or credible defence.

Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 12 April 2016. AIB said it had advanced €2.42 million to finance the purchase of the Briar Rose Bar and Restaurant in Douglas, Cork, and €1.1 million towards a nine-acre site with a dwelling house at Inchydoney, County Cork. The bank said the facilities were accepted by both defendants and that repayments had stopped. Its evidence was that the last payment on either account was made on 6 January 2012.

Solicitors for the bank sent separate demand letters to the defendants on 29 August 2013, seeking a combined €3,431,995.27 as of 27 August 2013. AIB later credited €582,385 from the sale of property held as security. The judgment does not identify the date of that sale. The court considered the bank’s account records and affidavits from bank officials, as well as the defendants’ responses.

The defendants challenged the evidence and the demands, and said they had bona fide defences. Liam Fahey raised concerns about hearsay, proof of the loan and the need for discovery, and suggested that contributory negligence might apply. Finola Fahey questioned whether her signature appeared on a complete document, said she did not recall agreeing to a loan of this scale, and argued that she was a consumer and had not received required notice. Neither defendant denied receiving the loan funds, signing the facility letter, being in default or failing to repay, the judgment said.

Justice McDermott rejected the challenges to the bank officials’ authority and the evidence under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts. He found that the demand process complied with the loan terms. He also concluded that the assertions about contributory negligence, Finola Fahey’s signature and understanding of the agreement, consumer protections and statutory remedies lacked supporting facts sufficient to establish an arguable defence.

The ruling was on AIB’s application for summary judgment. The court granted judgment for the amount claimed, €2,771,745.27. It did not grant the larger amount stated in the 2013 demand letters.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review