The High Court has dismissed Thomas J. Doran’s application to require Allied Irish Banks plc to provide further answers to written questions in a dispute over loans and property valuations. The court ruled only on the interrogatories application; it did not decide whether the bank is owed the alleged debt or whether the valuation reports were forged.
The bank brought proceedings to enforce an alleged debt arising from two loan agreements made in 2006 and 2007. The agreements required valuations of properties intended as security. The bank relied on reports purporting to have been prepared on 11 July 2007. Doran contended that no reports had been obtained at the time and that the reports later relied on by the bank were forged and backdated. Those are disputed claims, not findings in this judgment.
Doran also raised an issue about whether the land sale was at arm’s length, alleging an undisclosed connection between the estate agent who introduced him to the vendor and a bank official. The underlying case had been sent to a plenary hearing in 2012 because of factual disputes, including the authenticity and timing of the reports.
Doran served 95 interrogatories in December 2018. After the bank failed to answer within four weeks, he issued a motion in February 2019 seeking answers. The bank provided affidavit answers in September 2019, before the motion hearing that December. Doran then argued that many responses were inadequate.
The court said that, strictly, a fresh motion should have been brought to challenge the sufficiency of answers received after the original motion. In the particular circumstances, however, the judge allowed the existing motion to be amended to address that dispute. The court then dismissed the amended application, finding the bank was not required to answer any of the outstanding questions.
The interrogatories included questions about the contents and apparent errors in valuation documents, direct questions asking whether the bank or its staff had forged reports, vague questions, questions about a third party’s actions, and questions seeking evidence. The judge said interrogatories could not properly be used to ask for interpretations of documents or to require the bank to admit the central fraud allegation. That allegation would need to be pursued through evidence and examination at trial. The judge also said the bank could not reasonably be expected to answer for the actions of all its employees through one manager.
The judge proposed making no order for costs, criticising both sides’ handling of the application. The judgment invited short written submissions within 14 days if either party opposed that proposed costs outcome. The source does not record any later costs determination.