The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against Anthony Burke and Patrick Cusack, ruling that neither defendant had raised an arguable defence to the bank’s claim under a guarantee for Powerhaus Technologies Limited’s debts.
Mr Justice Max Barrett’s judgment, dated 19 May 2017, concerned a written guarantee signed by Burke and Cusack on 23 August 2007, when they were directors of Powerhaus. It made them jointly and severally liable for sums the company owed AIB, subject to a cap of €150,000 plus interest.
AIB demanded just over €81,000 from Powerhaus in July 2011. The company did not repay, and the bank later made written demands on the guarantors. The court held that the guarantee had been properly invoked and that the amount claimed remained jointly and severally outstanding.
Cusack had said in affidavit evidence that he did not understand the guarantee to make him liable for the full amount and had not been advised to seek independent legal advice. He also referred to difficulty negotiating with the bank and to liabilities he believed arose after he ceased involvement with Powerhaus. The judge said those defences appeared to have been abandoned insofar as they affected AIB’s claim. The judgment noted there was no evidence before the court that Cusack had formally resigned as a director; it said he appeared to have stopped being involved around 2008.
Burke disputed the bank’s claim on several grounds. The judge rejected his complaints about missing financial particulars and service of an amended summons, and found that the figures in the affidavit and statements reconciled. A further AIB affidavit addressing the transactions and calculation of the debt was admitted and relied on by the court. The judge said it dispelled the asserted confusion and found Burke had not sought an adjournment to respond to it.
The court also refused to send the case to a plenary hearing. It found no basis for doing so in Burke’s request for discovery, including material about AIB’s dealings with Cusack. The judgment concluded that the issues were simple and readily determined and that the evidence disclosed no arguable defence by either defendant. It therefore granted the summary judgment sought. The judgment does not state the precise amount entered in the order.