The Court of Appeal has allowed Mary Walsh’s appeal against summary judgment in favour of ACC Bank, giving her leave to defend the claim at a plenary hearing on limited grounds. The court did not decide whether Walsh was subject to undue influence or whether she is liable for the loan.
The High Court had ordered Walsh and Michael Walsh to pay the bank €938,957.37, with liberty for the bank to return in relation to the balance of its interest claim. Only Mary Walsh appeared at the appeal hearing.
The bank’s claim concerned a €926,000 loan offered jointly to the couple in 2004 to refinance earlier borrowing and fund renovations at a factory unit at Kerlogue Industrial Estate, Wexford. The earlier €676,000 loan, taken out by Michael Walsh alone in 2003, had been used to refinance borrowing for property in his sole name and to fund the purchase of factory premises.
Mary Walsh told the court she had not applied for the 2004 loan, had not met or spoken to bank staff about it, and did not sign the acceptance document. She said the loan proceeds brought her no benefit and that, if she signed any loan documents, she did so under her husband’s undue influence. The bank relied on documents it said bore her signature, the proceeds being paid into a joint account, and statements sent to both borrowers.
The appeal court said Walsh’s account, considered alongside the surrounding circumstances, raised at least an arguable case of undue influence. It also found it arguable that the bank had constructive notice of the circumstances and was required to take reasonable steps to ensure she understood the obligations and entered the loan freely. The court noted that there was no evidence the bank ensured she received independent legal advice or took other such steps.
The judgment stressed that the threshold at this stage was arguability, not whether Walsh was likely to win. The court made no final finding on undue influence or liability; those issues are for a judge to decide after oral evidence and cross-examination. It said the full hearing will be confined to the relevant defence.
The order grants leave to defend on the grounds that Walsh did not enter into the loan agreement or sign acceptance of the offer, or that, if she did, she did so because of her husband’s undue influence. The court directed that a defence be delivered on those grounds alone.