The High Court granted Bank of Ireland summary judgment against Ita Clarke for €122,762.71, comprising €120,000 principal and €2,762.71 in interest calculated to 7 April 2016. Mr Justice Robert Eagar delivered the decision on 19 May 2017 on the bank’s motion against Clarke, the fourth defendant in the proceedings.
The bank said Clarke signed a €120,000 guarantee in March 2009 for borrowing by Kindalen Ltd. The company later restructured its facility in 2011. The bank demanded payment from Clarke in January 2014 and again in June 2015, but said the amount remained unpaid.
Clarke disputed the claim. She said she did not recall signing the guarantee and denied that it had been witnessed as recorded. She also said she had not received a copy or understood the liability. She argued that the bank sent a Consumer Protection Code notification about the 2011 restructuring to an address with which she had no connection, and that she had not agreed to changes in the company’s borrowing. She further argued that the 2011 facility lacked consideration.
The bank acknowledged that it sent the notification to the wrong address and apologised. It argued that the guarantee was a continuing obligation and that Clarke’s consent was not required for the restructuring. The judgment also records a letter from M&A Stephens Consulting stating that Clarke had taken legal advice about a guarantee she had executed and was prepared to defend proceedings concerning it.
The court applied the summary judgment threshold: whether it was “very clear” that the defendant had no case or whether the affidavits disclosed an arguable defence. It found the evidence did not support Clarke’s challenge to signing the guarantee, noting the signed document and the consulting firm’s letter. On the notification issue, the judge concluded that section 30 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 did not apply because the loan was provided to a company, not a consumer. The court accepted the differing repayment terms in the facility letters as consideration.
Justice Eagar concluded that Clarke had not established an arguable defence and held that the bank was entitled to judgment. The judgment does not record a determination of the bank’s claims against the other defendants.