The High Court has ordered Allied Irish Banks to disclose documents about disputed loan facilities, an internal investigation into alleged forged signatures and the appointment of receivers over properties. It also ordered one plaintiff, Brendan McCleary, to provide documents concerning communications with professional advisers about property acquisitions and mortgages.
Ms Justice Creedon made the orders on 15 November 2017, deciding three discovery motions in plenary proceedings brought by Brendan McCleary and Brendan Hamilton against the bank, Marcus Purcell and Luke Charleton. The court dealt with two motions by the plaintiffs against the bank and one by the bank against McCleary. A separate motion involving the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants had already been agreed and struck out.
The plaintiffs allege that facility letters relied on by the bank were forged, making related mortgages unenforceable and receivers’ appointments invalid. They also allege that the bank engineered defaults. The bank disputes the allegations. The judge said the motions concerned discovery only; the court was not determining the merits of the underlying case.
For McCleary’s first motion, the court ordered disclosure of documents about negotiations for a February 2005 facility, including references to his loans with other financial institutions, and documents concerning negotiations for a November 2009 facility. It also ordered disclosure of records relating to the bank’s investigation into alleged forgery, and documents about its power to appoint receivers and the appointments over specified properties.
On the plaintiffs’ second motion, the court ordered discovery of documents concerning three facility letters issued to Hamilton, the bank’s investigation into alleged forged signatures on two letters, demand letters issued to Hamilton and the plaintiffs’ joint accounts, and documents about the issue and acceptance of specified facility letters. It also ordered communications between the bank and the receivers concerning two properties through 12 March 2015. The bank had offered a shorter period, but the court accepted the plaintiffs’ position that the receivers continued to act in relation to one property until the later date.
On the bank’s motion, the court ordered McCleary to disclose documents showing communications with solicitors, estate agents and other advisers about acquiring or mortgaging 14 listed properties. The bank argued these records were relevant to issues McCleary had raised about signing facility letters and mortgages and instructing drawdowns. The plaintiffs said the scope was oppressive and disproportionate. The judge concluded that the category was necessary to advance the bank’s counterclaim and was not unduly burdensome.
The judgment resolves the discovery categories before the court. It does not determine whether the signatures were forged, whether the bank was entitled to enforce the facilities, or the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.