The High Court granted Ulster Bank Ireland Limited summary judgment for €114,976.22 against Elena and Alan Moyne, finding they had not shown a real or bona fide defence to the bank’s claim under a guarantee they gave for company borrowing.
Mr and Mrs Moyne were shareholders and directors of Take Stock Ltd, which obtained an overdraft facility capped at €50,000 and a €100,000 demand loan from the bank in 2007. They signed a guarantee for €150,000. The facilities were repayable on demand. The judgment records that €114,976.22 was due from the company on 22 November 2011, and that the amount advanced had not been repaid.
After the company experienced business difficulties and ceased trading in early 2010, the bank demanded payment from the Moynes under the guarantee. It issued a summary summons in March 2012 and later applied for summary judgment. Alan Moyne, appearing in person, argued that the bank’s alleged breach of the facility agreement had caused the company’s failure. He said the bank had refused a drawdown against a €44,350 invoice from a supplier identified as Secant, and had instead advanced €10,000 without an invoice. He also disputed the use of summary procedure, asserted that the bank owed a duty of care, and complained that requested company records had not been provided.
The bank disputed those allegations. It submitted that the facility terms gave it discretion to refuse a drawdown if an invoice was not satisfactory, and that any dispute over the facility was between the bank and the company. It also relied on guarantee clauses allowing it to vary arrangements with the borrower and providing that specified changes or failures would not discharge the guarantors.
Mr Justice Noonan held that the facility letter gave the bank discretion over drawdowns and that the Secant invoice appeared irregular. He said any breach of the facility terms would concern the bank and the company, and could not provide the Moynes with a defence under the guarantee. The same applied to the alleged unauthorised €10,000 advance. He found no evidence supporting the claimed duty of care, and no basis for saying summary procedure was inappropriate.
The court’s decision was on the bank’s application for summary judgment. It concluded there was no fair or reasonable probability that the defendants had a bona fide defence, and granted judgment for the amount claimed. The judgment did not make a separate finding on the truth of every allegation about the company’s dealings with the bank.