The Court of Appeal has dismissed Thomas and Mary O’Callaghan’s appeal against a High Court judgment ordering them to pay Allied Irish Banks plc €466,757.63, plus interest and costs, over three lending accounts. It directed the bank to file an affidavit recalculating the debt after waiving surcharge interest, leaving the final amount to be determined.
In a judgment delivered on 19 November 2020, Mr Justice Robert Haughton said the couple had not shown a credible or bona fide defence that would require the claim to proceed to a full hearing. Justices Murray and Pilkington agreed. The High Court’s order was affirmed except for the adjustment required to deduct surcharge interest.
AIB’s claim arose from two loans and an overdraft, originally sanctioned in 2009 as a restructuring of earlier lending. The couple had signed the 2009 loan sanction, and the appeal did not dispute the borrowing or the repayment default. Their proposed defences included that Mary O’Callaghan had not received independent legal advice, that the couple were consumers entitled to protections under the Consumer Credit Act 1995, and that the bank had advised Thomas O’Callaghan on a Slovakian investment and was responsible for alleged failings in that lending.
The court concluded that the loans were for investment and business purposes, including land purchase and farming, so the couple could not be treated as consumers for these agreements. It also found no basis for a duty of care or fiduciary relationship that would support their claim of reckless lending. The judgment said Irish law does not recognise a tort of reckless lending.
The court did identify a live issue with the surcharge element. The account statements did not explain the contractual basis or calculation of surcharge interest. AIB’s counsel told the court the bank was waiving that interest, estimated at €400.89 across the three accounts. The court required AIB to verify by affidavit where surcharges had been applied, how they were deducted, and whether they had compounded further interest.
AIB was given 21 days to file and serve the revised figures. The O’Callaghans then had 21 days to contest the affidavit or make further submissions. The Court of Appeal said it would determine the amount of judgment, or consider whether another hearing was needed, if the figures remained disputed. Costs were left for written submissions and a later decision.