The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Paddy McKeown and Adelaide McCarthy against summary judgment for Allied Irish Banks plc over outstanding lending facilities.
In a judgment delivered on 28 November 2019, Ms Justice Donnelly said the High Court had made no error of fact or law. The appeal court upheld the High Court’s order giving the bank liberty to enter judgment for €1,469,251.43 against Mr McKeown and €1,467,102.96 against Ms McCarthy. The judgment explains that the sums included liabilities attributed separately to each borrower and a joint and several amount. Any money recovered from either appellant would reduce the relevant indebtedness.
The May 2013 loan letters made the facilities repayable on demand, subject to repayment or refinancing by or on 31 December 2013. The appellants argued that the wording required a reasonable opportunity to refinance. The court rejected that interpretation, concluding that the bank was entitled to call in the loans when it did. The facilities had not been repaid or refinanced.
The appellants also alleged improper conduct by the bank and argued that the guarantees given by Ms McCarthy had been discharged by changes to the underlying loans. The appeal court upheld the High Court’s conclusions that the allegations did not establish a defence to repayment and that the continuing guarantees covered the relevant lending within their stated limits.
A separate claim alleged overcharging of €57,857.67. The High Court had identified that as an independent claim but declined to stay its judgment, considering the alleged overcharge against the scale of the debt. The Court of Appeal found no error in that decision. It also rejected the appellants’ challenge concerning a counterclaim based on the alleged premature or improper calling in of the loans.
Several matters raised on appeal, including debt-proof issues, discovery and a challenge to the bank’s standing, were not properly before the court. The court rejected those grounds and dismissed the appeal. The judgment addressed the appeal from summary judgment; it did not determine the separate overcharging dispute on its merits.