The High Court has remitted Allied Irish Banks plc’s claim against Marino Motor Works Ltd. to plenary hearing, refusing to resolve the bank’s €728,388.84 claim by summary judgment. The court did not decide whether the debt was due or whether the company’s proposed counterclaim would succeed.
The bank began proceedings by summary summons in October 2014, seeking repayment under loan and overdraft facilities. It originally claimed €1,121,249.88. That figure had fallen to €728,388.84 by the hearing, primarily after a receiver sold property and the proceeds were applied against the debt.
The company disputed the bank’s account of the lending relationship and its conduct. Director Mrs. Barry said the business had met its commitments and alleged that the bank’s actions from 2009 onward contributed to its financial difficulties and the loss of its Opel dealership in 2014. The bank’s credit manager, Ms. Lombard, rejected allegations of oppressive conduct and said the company was struggling to meet repayments. The parties also disputed matters including arrears, the withdrawal of facilities and internet banking access. These were competing affidavit accounts, not findings that the bank had acted improperly.
The court focused on the interest calculation and a proposed counterclaim. The company’s accountant said he could not check whether the interest was correct without more information about charges across multiple accounts. The bank disputed the accountant’s examples of possible overcharges. The judge noted that the loan terms allowed interest from business credit line accounts to be charged to a current account, but found the information before the court insufficient for the company or court to verify the total claimed. There was no bank certificate under the loan’s conclusive evidence clause.
The judge said the interest issue was potentially a substantial part of the debt and that the claim was not suitable for summary disposal. She also found that, given the conflicts in the affidavits, the proposed negligence counterclaim was not inevitably doomed to fail. The judgment records that the company’s case would allege the bank’s conduct contributed to its financial difficulties; it does not determine negligence or liability.
With considerable hesitation, the judge remitted the matter to plenary hearing on both grounds. The order did not award the claimed sum, determine the underlying debt, or decide the counterclaim. Those issues remain for further proceedings.