The Court of Appeal has dismissed Kathleen Quinn’s appeal against a High Court order giving the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland judgment for €1,859,734.31. The appeal concerned whether her arguments raised a bona fide defence that required the bank’s summary claim to proceed to a full hearing.
Mr Justice Peart, in a judgment given on 10 February 2016, said the bank’s claim arose from a €1,749,497 loan facility agreed on 7 September 2010 with Quinn and her husband. The facility restructured earlier loans, and the bank said the borrowers had defaulted. The judgment records that the amount sought in a demand letter dated 25 April 2012 was €1,836,122.63, rising to €1,859,734.31 by the time the bank’s grounding affidavit was sworn.
Quinn argued that the loan and earlier facilities were unenforceable because of alleged failures to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1995. The court held that the 2010 facility fell within the Act’s definition of a housing loan, as an agreement refinancing credit provided for a qualifying housing purpose. The court said that category did not require the refinancing agreement itself to be secured by a mortgage. It therefore agreed that the Act’s relied-upon requirements did not apply to the facility sued upon.
The court also rejected Quinn’s argument that an earlier solicitor’s undertaking had to be stamped as an equitable mortgage before it could be relied on. It found the undertaking did not create an equitable charge over the house at 66 Bushy Park Road. The judgment said the 2010 facility was, in any event, the agreement sued upon and qualified as a housing loan without relying on the 2006 facility.
Quinn also alleged undue influence, duress and misrepresentation, and said the bank had failed to assess whether the loan was suitable under the Consumer Protection Code. The court said the allegations of undue influence and misrepresentation were unsupported assertions. On suitability, it found no evidence that the loan was unsuitable. It did not decide definitively whether the Code applied to the 2010 facility, but held that the evidence did not support making the loan unenforceable on that basis.
Because the arguments about consideration depended on the earlier loans being unenforceable, the court rejected that ground as well. It concluded that the High Court judge had correctly decided the issues on the motion for judgment and that the disputed matters did not require oral evidence at a plenary hearing. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court judgment in place.