The Court of Appeal dismissed Gregory Duggan’s appeal against a €150,000 judgment for Danske Bank and allowed the bank’s cross-appeal, directing that judgment be entered for a further €50,242.88. The total judgment is €200,242.88. The court did not decide the outstanding costs issue, which it said could take account of the bank’s conduct.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made on 20 June 2016. The High Court had granted judgment for €150,000 and sent the balance of the bank’s claim to a plenary hearing, where the disputed issues could be examined. The bank sought judgment for the full amended claim on appeal.
The bank had initially claimed €387,254.49 under term loan facilities and a current account. A receiver appointed in connection with security over Mr Duggan’s property sold it for €180,000, with net proceeds of €159,297.31 remitted to the bank. The bank later reduced its claim to €200,242.88, but the Court of Appeal found that the bank’s calculation of the remaining liability was incorrect. It said the evidence showed that at least the full amended claim remained due, even allowing for the sale proceeds and a €4,020 tax credit.
Mr Duggan argued that he had not received a fair hearing, that he should have been given access to further documents, and that the whole claim should have gone to a plenary hearing. He questioned whether the property had been sold below its available value and whether deductions from the sale price were justified. The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds. It found that the High Court judge had considered his submissions and the documents, and that discovery was not available in the summary proceedings. It also said Mr Duggan had not provided affidavit evidence supporting a defence to the first €150,000.
The court said the proposed concerns about the receiver’s sale and deductions related to the receiver, whom it described as Mr Duggan’s agent, and could not provide a defence to the bank’s claim. It also found that the reported €195,000 offer was an unsupported assertion and that no valuation evidence had been provided.
While allowing the bank’s cross-appeal, the court criticised its handling of the claim. It said the bank should have checked whether the property had been sold before seeking judgment and described its initial claim as grossly excessive. The court noted that the error could have had serious consequences if Mr Duggan had not appeared. It reserved the costs issue for further argument.