The Supreme Court has set aside summary judgment against Paula Tiernan in a loan dispute, ruling that she must have an opportunity to defend the claim at a full hearing in the High Court.
In a judgment delivered on 16 November 2016, Ms Justice Laffoy said it was not “very clear” that Ms Tiernan had no defence. The Court discharged the High Court order made in January 2011 and remitted the case for plenary hearing. It did not decide whether Ms Tiernan was liable for the money advanced.
Ulster Bank Ireland Limited began proceedings in 2009, claiming repayment of a loan. The High Court granted summary judgment for €1,798,267.02, together with statutory interest and costs. Before the Supreme Court appeal was heard, the High Court amended the case title to replace Ulster Bank with Promontoria (Aran) Limited. No issue was raised about that change on appeal.
The central dispute was whether Ms Tiernan accepted a €1.747 million facility as the principal borrower or as an agent for her father, Francis Tiernan, whom she said was the disclosed principal. She said her father negotiated and received the loan, and that the bank knew his role. The bank disputed that account, arguing that the facility letter and dealings showed Ms Tiernan was the borrower in her own right.
The judgment also recorded Ms Tiernan’s claims that three signatures on the loan and security documents were not hers, that she had not authorised solicitors’ undertakings, and that she had not received the money. The bank disputed her account. These matters were part of the affidavit evidence and were not findings made after a trial.
The Supreme Court applied the test for summary judgment: whether it was clear the defendant had no defence, rather than whether the Court was inclined to believe the defendant. It concluded that Ms Tiernan’s affidavits provided a credible basis for the proposed agency defence. Whether she acted as an agent or as principal would involve factual and legal questions, potentially including document interpretation, that were not straightforward and should be resolved at a plenary hearing.
The Court’s order gives Ms Tiernan leave to defend the claim. The underlying loan dispute and the parties’ competing accounts remain for the High Court to determine.