The Court of Appeal has dismissed Finbarr Tolan’s appeal against an order allowing Everyday Finance DAC to amend a summary summons in proceedings seeking to recover money allegedly owed.
The appeal concerned permission to add further particulars to the claim. The court stressed that the High Court’s order did not decide the merits of the claim or certify that the proposed amendments met the requirements set out by the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v O’Malley.
The proceedings began in 2017 with Allied Irish Banks plc as plaintiff. In February 2024, the High Court substituted Everyday Finance for the bank. Everyday then applied to amend the summons, saying further particulars were needed in light of the Supreme Court’s O’Malley judgment. On 18 November 2024, despite Mr Tolan’s opposition, the High Court gave Everyday permission to amend the summons and its schedule, and to reserve the amended summons within 14 days of the order’s perfection.
Mr Tolan argued that the amendment application should have been delayed until the High Court considered his motion to contest the earlier substitution order. He also complained that he had not been heard fully at the amendment hearing. The Court of Appeal said the substitution order had legal effect when made, so Everyday could apply to amend before Mr Tolan’s separate motion was heard. It found that the High Court judge had allowed Mr Tolan to make his submissions and rejected his complaint about the hearing.
The appeal court also addressed Mr Tolan’s argument that Everyday’s proposed amendments failed to comply with O’Malley. It noted that he had accepted he did not raise that point before the High Court. In any event, the court said the amendment order was not a ruling on the adequacy of the particulars. Mr Tolan could pursue alleged deficiencies later through an appropriate application, including seeking further and better particulars or, possibly, discovery.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Its decision left the permission to amend in place; it did not determine the underlying debt claim or whether the amended particulars were sufficient.