The Court of Appeal dismissed David Coleman’s appeal against a High Court summary judgment ordering him to pay Danske Bank €367,467.12. The court held that he had not demonstrated a bona fide and credible defence to the bank’s claim under a 2011 guarantee.
The bank had begun summary proceedings in 2013, seeking €729,500 from Coleman and Dermot Crinion under a guarantee dated 27 July 2011. It later settled its claim against Crinion. After realising certain assets, it reduced the amount it sought from Coleman to €367,467.12. The High Court granted summary judgment on 7 July 2015, finding that Coleman had not established an arguable defence. Coleman appealed that decision.
The dispute centred on a loan facility offered to Elstonwood Limited in August 2011. Coleman argued that the guarantee relied on by the bank predated the offer, while a clause in the offer referred to a guarantee of €729,500 to be put in place “in conjunction with” the agreement. His solicitor said Coleman did not recall signing a guarantee after the offer. His counsel argued that a later guarantee might exist and have different terms.
The Court of Appeal said the bank’s claim was based on the July guarantee, not the loan agreement. Coleman had not denied signing the guarantee, whose terms covered sums that later became due to the bank from Elstonwood. The court also noted that his earlier affidavits had not disputed liability under the guarantee; they sought time to make a proposal and raised a question about the calculation of interest.
The court rejected the argument that the guarantee had to postdate the loan offer. It found that the guarantee was broad enough to cover the later loan, and that the offer’s clause on existing security allowed the bank to rely on security already held unless it expressly said otherwise. The court described the suggestion of another, unknown guarantee as hypothetical and unsupported by Coleman’s affidavits.
The appeal concerned whether the case should proceed to a full hearing. The Court of Appeal concluded that Coleman had not met the threshold for referring the summary proceedings to a plenary hearing and dismissed the appeal. The summary judgment therefore remained in place.