The High Court has refused ACC Bank’s application for summary judgment against Margaret Hanrahan and Michelle Sheehan over a claimed debt of €1,839,108.06, sending the action to a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 6 March 2014, Mr Justice Barr said Ms Hanrahan had met the threshold for resisting summary judgment. The court found there were conflicting accounts across a wide range of issues. It did not decide whether the bank or either defendant was liable, or resolve the disputed allegations.
The claim arose from the August 2007 purchase of Burncourt Farm in Cahir, Co Tipperary. Ms Hanrahan’s account was that a bank official encouraged her to use two-year bridging finance while she sold other properties to repay the loan. She alleged he undertook to guide her through the transaction and gave negligent advice. ACC Bank denied that it owed her a duty of care or that the official held himself out as her adviser or gave the alleged advice.
The judge identified disputes about the official’s role and any duty of care, whether that duty was breached, and whether €235,687 in default interest amounted to a penalty. The court also noted uncertainty over whether proceeds from sales of properties used as security had been credited against the debt. Another issue was whether the bank had waived a loan condition requiring a €1 million valuation of a property at 114 Irishtown, Clonmel; the highest valuation obtained was €950,000. The judgment left the effect of any breach to be considered at the full hearing.
Ms Hanrahan also alleged that the farm’s ownership was split between the defendants without her knowledge, and that the properties purchased and secured differed from what they understood. ACC Bank disputed responsibility for the ownership arrangements, saying these were matters for the defendants’ solicitors. The judgment records further disagreements about the loan application and the treatment of compensation funds.
Ms Sheehan said she had not spoken to the bank about the loan and understood that her liability would be limited to her share of the farm. The bank argued that the signed loan offer was not a limited-recourse agreement. The judge said it was less clear that Ms Sheehan had a defence, but the defendants’ cases and the bank’s claim were inextricably connected, making it fair to send the whole action to a full hearing.
The court refused summary judgment against both defendants and remitted the action for plenary hearing. It allowed four weeks for a statement of claim, four weeks for a defence and any counterclaim, four weeks for any notice for particulars, and a further four weeks for replies.