The Supreme Court has dismissed John Meagher’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to set aside a €6,984,826.48 summary judgment in favour of Danske Bank A/S, trading as Danske Bank. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Laffoy on 1 April 2014, with Mr Justice Fennelly and Ms Justice Dunne also on the panel.
The bank’s claim arose from a facility letter dated 28 February 2011. The High Court entered summary judgment on 25 February 2013 after the bank obtained an order allowing service of the proceedings by prepaid post to an address in Milltown, Ashbourne, County Meath. The bank had claimed that the sum was due on 2 January 2013, plus interest and costs.
Meagher applied to set aside the service order, the judgment and subsequent orders. He said he had not lived at the Meath address, had not received notice of the proceedings and was outside Ireland when the judgment was sought. His niece, Lauren Cox, also disputed a summons server’s account of their January 2013 encounter at the family home. The bank relied on company filings and a mortgage recording the Meath address, and on evidence from an accountant who said Meagher had given him that address for correspondence.
The High Court refused Meagher’s application in November 2013. It found that substituted service was appropriate and that he had known about the proceedings before judgment was entered. The Supreme Court considered whether the substituted service order should be set aside and whether the judgment had been irregularly obtained.
The Supreme Court held that the rules governing substituted service did not require the defendant to be physically within the jurisdiction when the order was made or service effected. The relevant requirement was that prompt personal service could not be achieved. It also accepted that the High Court could infer from the evidence that an arrangement existed for Meagher to be told about documents sent to the Meath address, even though the description of the property as his residence was incorrect.
The Court said it had no transcript, audio recording or agreed note of Meagher’s oral evidence in the High Court. In those unusual circumstances, it had no basis to overturn the High Court judge’s credibility finding that Meagher knew of the proceedings before the February judgment. It therefore treated the judgment as regularly obtained.
Meagher had not put forward an affidavit showing a defence on the merits with a reasonable prospect of success, which the Court said was an essential requirement for setting aside a regular judgment. The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court did not reopen the underlying debt claim or grant an opportunity to defend it. The bank had said it would not oppose such an opportunity if Meagher filed evidence of a merits defence and proposed suitable terms.