The Court of Appeal has dismissed Joanna Sloan’s appeal against a High Court order requiring her to pay Allied Irish Banks plc €1,594,616.10 plus costs. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the bank, finding that Ms Sloan had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a defence.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Maurice Collins on 21 May 2021, concerned facilities said to have been advanced under a letter dated 28 June 2007. The facilities included funding for the purchase of two office units, Units A and C, at the Apex Centre in Sandyford Industrial Estate, as well as equity releases. The units secured the lending. Ms Sloan’s husband, Simon Kelly, was named as guarantor.
Ms Sloan argued that the Bank had compromised claims connected with other Apex Centre borrowers and that she could rely on section 35(1)(h) of the Civil Liability Act 1961. She said loans to other borrowers had been transferred to NAMA and might have been sold or compromised. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence the Bank had released or reached an accord with those borrowers. It also found that any other borrowers’ liabilities were distinct from Ms Sloan’s individual loan liability, so the statutory defence could not apply on the case presented.
The court also rejected Ms Sloan’s claim that she did not know of or agree to the loan. She disputed signing the 2007 facility letter, but did not dispute executing two mortgage deeds over the units. The judgment noted that she had not explained why she signed those deeds if she knew nothing of the loan. The court also referred to account statements and demand letters sent to her residence, and to a joint 2009 reply from Ms Sloan and her husband concerning unpaid rental payments and interest arrears.
The High Court had rejected Ms Sloan’s defences and granted summary judgment on 12 March 2019. Her separate limitation-period challenge was not pursued at the appeal hearing. The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence did not establish a real or bona fide defence and dismissed the appeal.
The court indicated that Ms Sloan should pay the Bank’s appeal costs. She was given 21 days to apply for a brief further hearing if she wished to argue for a different costs order; absent such an application, the proposed costs order would be made.