The Court of Appeal has dismissed two appeals by Sam Deacon and Ben Deacon in debt proceedings brought by ACC Bank, upholding judgments for €3,343,379.86 against Sam Deacon and €173,056.89 against Ben Deacon.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 1 December 2020, concerned six loan facilities made between April 2007 and August 2008. Sam Deacon was party to all six; Ben Deacon was party only to the first. The bank demanded repayment in March 2011 after instalments fell into arrears, and issued proceedings two months later.
The appeals challenged the High Court’s June 2013 judgment for the bank and a December 2012 order striking out paragraphs of the defence that alleged unauthorised pension backed loans and forged signatures. The Court of Appeal said the challenge to the earlier order had been largely overtaken by the trial and was “largely, if not entirely, moot”. It found no basis to interfere with the order insofar as it remained in issue.
The appellants argued that the bank had not proved the original loan documents. The appeal court rejected that argument, saying the bank had to prove agreements and their terms, not a particular document. It relied on evidence from bank witnesses and Sam Deacon’s solicitors that he signed the facility letters and that they returned them to the bank as duly completed. The court said that evidence was unchallenged, including on the authority of the solicitors to act for him. It also noted that the original agreements had been put in evidence during the trial.
Sam Deacon denied knowing about loans five and six, which replaced earlier pension backed loans. The court accepted the evidence that he had agreed to the replacement facilities. It also upheld the trial judge’s treatment of handwriting evidence offered to support the forgery allegation, noting the judge’s reservations about the witness’s qualifications and methodology. The court said that evidence did not alter the proof of the agreements.
The appeal court rejected the remaining grounds, including claims about financial advice, consumer protections, the Small and Medium Enterprises Code and misrepresentation. It said the bank’s claim did not concern the pension backed loans and that no specific misrepresentation or evidence supporting one had been established at trial.
The court’s provisional view was that the bank should receive the costs of both appeals. The appellants were given 14 days to seek a short further hearing on costs; absent such an application, an order in the proposed terms would be made. The judgment records that Justices Faherty and Ní Raifeartaigh agreed.