The High Court entered summary judgment for Allied Irish Banks plc for €1,026,075.67 against Victoria Casey, but sent the bank’s claims under three other loan agreements to a plenary hearing because there were arguable issues about whether her signatures were genuine.
Mr Justice Barr gave judgment on 15 March 2016 in the bank’s application for €1,470,181.05 against Ms Casey. Her former husband, William Casey, did not enter an appearance and judgment had already been marked against him in the Central Office.
The bank’s claim arose from six loan agreements made between 2005 and 2011. Ms Casey disputed liability, saying she had been unaware of some transactions and that signatures attributed to her had been forged. Her handwriting expert, David Madden, examined five original agreements. He concluded that the signatures on the agreements dated 28 March 2007 and 21 March 2011 were not genuine. He found that the signatures on the agreements dated 31 May 2010, 24 November 2011 and 25 November 2011 were genuine. The original 17 June 2005 agreement was unavailable for his examination.
The judge ruled that Ms Casey had no arguable defence to the three agreements on which her own expert found her signatures genuine. He also rejected her other arguments that the bank had to explain the extent of her liabilities, had made negligent misrepresentations, or had a duty to ensure she obtained independent legal advice. He said she had not identified a specific misrepresentation or alleged that she acted under her husband’s undue influence in circumstances known, or which ought to have been known, to the bank. A wish to cross-examine a bank witness, by itself, was not enough to prevent summary judgment.
The court awarded €855,166.52 under the 31 May 2010 agreement, €9,511.35 under the 24 November 2011 agreement and €161,397.80 under the 25 November 2011 agreement, including interest calculated to the date of judgment. Those amounts total €1,026,075.67.
The judge remitted the claims under the 17 June 2005, 28 March 2007 and 21 March 2011 agreements to a plenary hearing. The first was remitted although the expert had not examined its original; the other two involved an arguable defence that Ms Casey’s signatures were forged. The court’s decision did not determine those remaining claims at this stage.