The High Court has refused to dismiss Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC’s €887,515.94 claim against Joseph and Anne Roche, finding that a lengthy delay in the summary proceedings was excused by the defendants’ agreement to numerous adjournments.
In a judgment delivered on 27 September 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger dismissed the defendants’ applications to end the proceedings for want of prosecution or for inordinate and inexcusable delay. She did not decide whether the alleged debts are owed, or whether the defendants have a defence.
The claim, brought by summary summons in January 2014, concerns four sums said to arise from three loan facilities and an overdraft. The plaintiff says repayments stopped in March 2013. It seeks €887,515.94, including interest accrued to November 2013, and has waived interest accruing after that date.
The defendants dispute the claim and say the matter should proceed to a plenary hearing. In affidavits, they alleged that the bank breached their agreements by changing repayment arrangements in 2013, created a default that did not exist and tricked them into signing facility documents. Those allegations have not been determined.
Justice Bolger found the delay from 2018 to 2023 was inordinate, particularly because the plaintiff had chosen summary proceedings. However, she held it was excused because the defendants had agreed to 19 adjournments, including to allow negotiations and facilitate the plaintiff’s substitution for Danske Bank after the loan sale. The court also held that the March 2022 substitution order was a “proceeding” for the purpose of Order 122, rule 11. Alternatively, if it was not, the court would still decline to dismiss the case given both sides’ involvement in the adjournments.
The judge considered the defendants’ claimed prejudice, including missing documents and concerns about faded witness recollections. She found no sufficient connection between the 2018–2023 delay and most of the alleged prejudice, which the defendants said had arisen earlier. Any issues from the delay could be addressed by the judge hearing the summary judgment motion or a plenary hearing, if one is ordered.
The plaintiff’s motion to amend its summons remains pending and may further delay the summary judgment hearing. Justice Bolger said she would hear counsel on orders to prevent further unnecessary delay. Her indicative view was that the plaintiff should receive its costs of defending the dismissal motion, subject to agreement or adjudication, with execution stayed pending the final outcome of the proceedings. The matter was listed for mention on 10 October 2024 for final orders, including costs.