The High Court granted summary judgment to AIB Bank plc against Joseph Hogan, finding that his evidence disclosed no arguable defence to the bank’s claim for outstanding debt. The court also ordered AIB Bank plc and AIB Mortgage Bank to review their handling of a €7,000 surplus from the sale of a holiday home and explain their actions to Mr Hogan.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 26 May 2016, concerned summary proceedings brought by Allied Irish Banks plc and AIB Mortgage Bank. The court said Mr Hogan’s debt to AIB Mortgage Bank had since been repaid in full, leaving AIB Bank plc’s claim for the sums still due to it.
Mr Hogan argued that a letter from AIB dated 24 June 2013 recorded an agreement on how he would repay his liabilities. The court described the letter as ambiguous, but found that his later correspondence showed he had treated it as an offer under negotiation, not as an agreed set of terms. In August 2013, he asked the bank to amend the offer. In November, he wrote that he could not accept the latest offer and would not proceed on the basis of the earlier one.
The court said those letters showed that no agreement had been concluded. It rejected the argument, advanced by Mr Hogan’s solicitors, that he had accepted an offer and met its conditions before the bank withdrew it. The court said acting consistently with an offer previously rejected did not, by itself, turn the rejection into acceptance.
A separate issue concerned about €7,000 left over after the sale of a holiday home used to clear the AIB Mortgage Bank loan. The surplus appeared to have been applied to reduce Mr Hogan’s debt to AIB Bank plc. The court had not been given the account terms and did not decide whether the banks had acted lawfully. It ordered both banks to revisit the issue, write to Mr Hogan with a full explanation, and refund the €7,000 plus interest if appropriate.
Applying the summary judgment test, the court found that the contractual basis for AIB Bank plc’s claim and the outstanding sums had been established in affidavit evidence. It concluded Mr Hogan’s issues were simple and easily determined and did not justify sending the case to a plenary hearing. The court therefore granted the summary judgment sought and made the additional order concerning the €7,000.