The High Court refused Bank of Ireland’s application for summary judgment against Gerard Macken and Helen Macken, finding that an arguable issue over which loan facility governed the debt made the case unsuitable for that procedure.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Twomey on 22 June 2016, concerned claims for €600,052.62 against Mr Macken as borrower and €281,151.37 against Mrs Macken as guarantor. Neither defendant denied that the money had been borrowed or was owed. The court said other defences lacked credibility, and it did not find Mrs Macken’s challenges to the guarantee credible or arguable.
The defendants’ counsel pursued two technical points: the Bank had not exhibited bank statements or records to support the amount claimed, and it relied on the November 2010 facility letter rather than a March 2014 letter. That earlier letter renewed facilities provided to Mr Macken to purchase and develop property in Carrick-on-Suir.
The March 2014 letter referred to restructuring and renewing the existing facility. Mr Macken signed it on 1 April 2014, outside its 14-day acceptance period, and sent a note disputing the security described in it. The Bank replied on 9 April, asking him to raise any issue within 10 days. The court noted there was no evidence he responded within that period. It considered it arguable that the March letter amended, restated or replaced the 2010 letter. The Bank’s later correspondence also appeared to treat the 2014 letter as binding, while its submissions argued that the letter was not binding; the court noted that the Bank had provided no evidence supporting that contention.
The demand letter, dated 13 January 2014, and the summary summons issued on 12 June 2014 relied on the November 2010 facility letter. The judge said the Bank’s failure to rely on the March 2014 terms, which were arguably the basis for the sums due, meant the matter was not suitable for summary judgment. The judgment did not determine whether the 2014 letter ultimately replaced the 2010 letter or whether the debt was owed.
The court also said it was arguable that a bank official’s statement of the amount due needed documentary support, such as a bank statement. It did not decide that issue. Summary judgment was refused; the judgment did not make a final determination of the debt claim.