The Supreme Court has dismissed Jerry Beades’ appeal against a High Court judgment ordering him to pay Ulster Bank Ireland Limited €3,521,735.02, plus interest. The appeal concerned judgment entered on a summary summons, a procedure for claims to recover a debt or other liquidated sum.
In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2019, Mr Justice William McKechnie said the court could not identify an arguable basis in the evidence or submissions for allowing the case to proceed to a plenary hearing. The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court did not rehear the debt claim as a full trial; it considered whether the High Court had been entitled to enter judgment through the summary procedure.
The bank offered Beades a €3.27 million facility in May 2010. He accepted it in writing in July that year. The facility was intended to redeem and combine specified accounts and capitalise current accounts. After concerns about repayments and meetings in 2012, the bank issued proceedings in April 2013 seeking €3,521,735.02. The High Court entered judgment on 10 October 2013.
Beades, who represented himself in the High Court and on appeal, challenged the identity of the plaintiff bank, the admissibility of the bank employee’s affidavit, the demand letter, and other matters. He also alleged that money had been misappropriated from company accounts he controlled. Those were his allegations and arguments; the Supreme Court assessed whether they disclosed a defence to this bank’s debt claim.
The Court said the 2010 facility letter was issued by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited and established the contractual relationship underlying the debt. It found no evidence that a cross-border merger had transferred the relevant facility to another entity. The affidavit was sworn by Fergal White, who had co-signed the facility letter and stated that he was authorised to access the bank’s records. The Court found no evidential basis to treat his affidavit as inadmissible.
The Court acknowledged that an earlier, undated January 2013 letter raised questions, including a balance stated as of 13 March. It nevertheless accepted the bank’s dated letter of 13 March 2013 as the demand relied on and found it constituted a proper demand after default.
On the alleged misappropriation, the Court said the events predated the facility, concerned accounts belonging to companies rather than Beades personally, and had not resulted in separate proceedings. It concluded the allegation did not provide a sustainable defence to this claim. The High Court judgment therefore remained in place following dismissal of the appeal.