Judgment: 2017-05-15 · Court archive

High Court refuses discovery application before deciding summary judgment claim

The court said discovery would arise only if a defence first prevented summary judgment in a €671,097.44 loan claim.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 304

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • ACC Loan Management Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Margaret Kelly (Defendant)
What

The court said discovery would arise only if a defence first prevented summary judgment in a €671,097.44 loan claim.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court refused Oliver and Margaret Kelly’s application for discovery while a summary judgment claim over two loan facilities remained to be decided. Mr Justice Eagar said discovery would arise only if the court first found that the defendants had raised a defence that prevented summary judgment.

The High Court refused Oliver and Margaret Kelly’s application for discovery while a summary judgment claim over two loan facilities remained to be decided. Mr Justice Eagar said discovery would arise only if the court first found that the defendants had raised a defence that prevented summary judgment.

ACC Loan Management Limited claimed €671,097.44, the amount it said was due on two facilities advanced in 2006. The first facility was for up to €300,000. The judgment records that €191,744.24 in net receivership sale proceeds and a further €37,000 payment were credited against it. A demand in October 2013 sought €71,097.44 as the remaining balance on that facility. The second facility was €600,000, which the plaintiff demanded in full. The plaintiff also sought interest.

The defendants represented themselves. In an affidavit, they raised alleged errors in loan documents and property addresses, disputed how payments were allocated, and complained of interest, fees and funds they said were missing or taken. They also said the bank had committed to provide development finance. The plaintiff’s affidavits disputed those claims. The court noted that the defendants did not dispute that the loan funds had been advanced or that the amounts referred to in the proceedings remained unpaid.

The defendants sought discovery of documents in the plaintiff’s possession or control. The plaintiff objected to the application being heard at the summary judgment stage. The judgment refers to an earlier Court of Appeal decision explaining that discovery is generally determined by reference to formal pleadings after a case is sent for plenary hearing; it is not intended to help a party formulate a defence for the summary judgment stage.

Justice Eagar refused the discovery relief sought. He held that the issue would arise only if the court decided the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because the defendants had raised a defence. He said the court would then proceed to consider whether any defence had been raised. The judgment does not decide the summary judgment application or determine the loan claim’s final outcome.

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