The High Court has not yet granted summary judgment in AIB Mortgage Bank’s claims against Adrian Blanc and Lucille Blanc. Mr Justice Max Barrett said the bank could file further evidence about service of demand letters, after which the parties may respond and make submissions on that issue.
The claims concern two sets of loan liabilities: one loan to Adrian Blanc as sole borrower and loans to both defendants as joint and several borrowers. The bank sought to amend its pleadings to claim the amounts actually owing. The judge said the court would allow that amendment.
The defendants raised a number of objections. These included challenges to the bank manager’s evidence and the use of bank records, the absence of perfected deeds of charge, and whether the defendants were consumers. The judge rejected those arguments at this stage, finding the manager’s evidence sufficient, saying the security issue concerned enforcement rather than liability for the debt, and concluding that the loans related to multiple property investments and the defendants had crossed from consumer to non-consumer status.
The judge also rejected the suggestion that AIB Mortgage Bank was not the correct plaintiff. He said the bank’s tracker rate investigation had ended without finding an error. He further said a bank generally had no duty to advise customers about the prudence of a lending transaction absent an express assumption of responsibility, for which there was no evidence in this case.
The demand-letter issue remained open. The judge said the bank had understood the defendants’ pleadings to dispute the amounts demanded, but at the hearing it became clear they alleged the letters had not been received. He accepted that this defence had not been clearly stated and allowed the bank to file an affidavit on service, with either or both defendants permitted to reply. The court will then hear any submissions on service.
Subject to that issue being in order, the judge said he would grant summary judgment for the revised amounts sought. He considered the evidence before the court disclosed no arguable defence and no issues requiring a plenary hearing. The judgment does not state the revised amounts, and it does not record a final summary judgment order.