The High Court found that ACC Bank PLC’s affidavit evidence did not meet the statutory requirements for proving its account records, and declined to grant summary judgment at that stage. The court said it would hear further submissions, including on a possible application to file supplemental affidavit evidence.
The bank sought €250,000 from Micheal Byrne under a personal guarantee for lending to China Girls Ltd. The case was before the High Court on appeal from the Master, who had refused the bank’s summary judgment application. Mr Justice Cregan delivered judgment on 31 July 2014.
Byrne argued that ADM Londis had also guaranteed the borrower’s obligations, and that its release discharged the remaining guarantors. He also challenged the bank’s evidence under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts 1879–1989.
The judge rejected the co-guarantee argument. The evidence before him showed that ADM Londis’s guarantee was a separate contract and had been amended to expire on 5 March 2006. The judgment said Byrne had been aware of its terms, and that his own guarantee provided that his liability would not be affected by a discharge or compromise involving another person. The judge concluded that the arguments based on ADM Londis’s release had to be rejected.
The separate evidential challenge concerned the bank’s account records. The judgment explained that the Acts allow copies of entries in bankers’ books to be used as evidence if specified safeguards are met. Those include proof about the bank’s records and how entries were made, as well as verification of the copies.
The bank relied on an affidavit from Niamh Kavanagh, who described herself as an ACC Bank employee and referred to a statement of account and spreadsheet. The court found the affidavit did not formally establish that the relevant records were ordinary bank records, that the entries were made in the usual course of business, or that the records were in the bank’s custody or control. It also found the statutory verification requirements had not been met.
The court’s conclusion was limited to the affidavit evidence then before it: the requirements of the Acts had not been complied with. The judgment did not determine the bank’s claim on the merits or finally dispose of the proceedings. It reserved further submissions on any application, particularly one seeking to add affidavit evidence.