The Court of Appeal has dismissed three appeals by Con Egan and Theresa Egan against summary judgments for Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, leaving in place orders totalling €377,886.99, plus statutory interest and costs.
The High Court made the orders on 3 March 2014: €121,232.67 against both defendants jointly, €128,845.80 against Con Egan, and €127,808.52 against Theresa Egan. The joint debt arose from guarantees of amounts owed by Key Cars Limited, up to €120,000 plus interest from demand. The judgment against Con Egan related to his loan accounts. Theresa Egan’s judgment arose from her guarantee of Con Egan’s debt, up to €165,000 plus interest from demand. The High Court orders included a two-month stay on execution.
The defendants admitted the amounts claimed but sought a plenary hearing, arguing that the bank’s affidavits did not establish the debts under the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1879. Their challenge focused on Garry Holbrook, the bank employee who swore the affidavits. In one affidavit he identified Ulster Bank Ireland Limited as his employer; in another he said he worked for Ulster Bank Limited, a separate legal entity. The affidavits also gave different addresses. In a third, “Ireland” had been crossed out in the bank’s name.
The Court of Appeal considered that the differences might have resulted from an error, simultaneous employment by both banks, or work at different addresses. It noted that Holbrook said he had access to the plaintiff bank’s records, had reviewed them, and acted with the bank’s authority. The defendants had not sought to cross-examine him. In affidavits sworn in February 2015, he stated that he was employed by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited and described his access to and review of its records.
The court also relied on Order 37 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which permits a summary judgment application to be supported by an affidavit from a person who can swear positively to the facts showing the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The court was satisfied that Holbrook had access to and had reviewed the relevant records, and had been designated by the bank to do so. It found that the requirements of Order 37, rule 1 had been met.
Because the defendants acknowledged the debts, the court held that no purpose would be served by a plenary hearing. It dismissed all three appeals. The judgment said a stay on entry or execution could be considered for good reason; it did not grant a new stay in its concluding order.