The Court of Appeal has allowed Allied Irish Banks plc’s appeal over a summary summons against Eileen Pierce, ruling that the bank’s particulars were adequate for the pleading challenge and that the Master had no jurisdiction to strike out the contested case.
The bank sought €785,928.24, plus continuing interest at current bank rates, for loans advanced to Ms Pierce from 2007. Further facilities were granted in April 2008 and restructured in June 2009. After the facility fell into arrears, the bank’s solicitors demanded repayment on 23 April 2013.
The summons identified the amount claimed, the demand date and the relevant loan account. The Master struck it out on 16 October 2014, finding that the interest claim had not been adequately particularised. The High Court upheld that decision on 14 November 2014. AIB appealed.
In a judgment delivered on 22 April 2015, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the particulars were sufficient in this case. He noted that correspondence from Ms Pierce’s financial adviser, exhibited in affidavits filed for the bank, showed that she was acquainted with the nature of the claim. The court was not asked to decide whether the debt was owed: Ms Pierce had raised a preliminary pleading objection and had not yet filed an affidavit setting out a defence on the merits.
The judgment said a defendant may need further particulars in an unusual or exceptional case, but should first show by convincing affidavit evidence that the lack of detail would compromise a fair defence. Hogan J said there was no such showing here. He also said a concise pleading was not required to set out a running account resembling a bank statement.
The appeal court separately held that the case was contested because Ms Pierce opposed the bank’s application, including on the ground that the summons was defective. Under Order 37, the Master’s role in a contested case was to transfer it to the High Court when administratively ready for hearing; the Master could not strike it out on that basis.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court to hear the merits of the bank’s application. No decision on those merits was made by the appeal court.