The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Mansfield’s appeal against a High Court summary judgment of €6,324,959.81 in favour of Allied Irish Banks plc (AIB). The appeal concerned whether Mansfield had an arguable defence that he did not understand the legal character of the facility letter he signed in January 2009.
The High Court entered judgment against Mansfield in June 2010. Three other defendants did not appeal, and Mansfield did not pursue appeals against the rejection of two other proposed defences. The Court of Appeal heard his appeal after it was transferred from the Supreme Court under Article 64 of the Constitution. It delivered judgment on 19 February 2015.
AIB’s claim arose from facilities associated with land and a development in Duleek, County Meath. The January 2009 letter set out two facilities: €772,187 originally sanctioned towards the purchase of a 1.1-acre site, and €5,331,229 originally sanctioned towards developing two apartment blocks, commercial units, a crèche and underground parking. Both were stated to be repayable on demand, with full clearance due by 28 February 2009. The four defendants signed the letter on 20 January 2009; Mansfield accepted that he signed it.
Mansfield’s evidence was that he had severe reading difficulties, could not read the letter, and understood the meeting to concern extending repayment time. He said he did not understand that signing made him liable for the larger development borrowing. An educational psychologist’s assessment, described in the judgment, reported reading ability typical of a seven-year-old and characteristics of dyslexia. The High Court accepted that Mansfield had this significant reading disability for the purpose of the application.
The appeal focused on the proposed defence of non est factum. The Court of Appeal said the defence required evidence that the signer took reasonable precautions, in their circumstances, to find out what document they were signing. It held that this was a separate requirement from showing a fundamental difference between the document signed and the document the signer thought they were signing.
The court concluded that Mansfield knew he was signing acceptance of a facility letter, a legal document creating financial obligations, but had provided no evidence that could arguably show he took reasonable precautions. It noted there was no evidence he asked colleagues about the amount of liability he would assume. The court therefore dismissed the appeal. The decision left the High Court’s summary judgment against Mansfield in place; it did not determine a full trial of the underlying claim.