The High Court granted summary judgment to Clones Credit Union Limited against Liam Strain and Peter Lynch, rejecting their request to have the case sent to a plenary hearing. The judgment concerned only those two defendants, although the proceedings also named John Prunty and Barry Murphy.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said Strain and Lynch borrowed just over €212,000 under a credit agreement dated 25 July 2008. After default, the credit union sought judgment for the principal owing, interest and ancillary relief. The judgment does not state the amount ultimately awarded.
The two borrowers did not dispute the total amount owed. They relied on a revised repayment structure agreed in June 2012, under which the credit union accepted lower monthly repayments for a time. They said they had met those revised payments and questioned why proceedings had begun. They asked for the dispute to proceed to a plenary hearing.
The credit union argued that the rule in Pinnel’s case defeated the defence. The judge rejected that argument: the credit union had not agreed to accept a smaller sum in satisfaction of the larger debt. Instead, the arrangement concerned lower repayments while the full debt continued to be acknowledged.
The judge also found no binding standstill contract because neither borrower had provided consideration for a promise to delay proceedings. He considered promissory estoppel, but said there was no evidence that either borrower had changed position to their detriment in reliance on a clear and unambiguous promise intended to alter the parties’ legal relations. The court found nothing that would make it unconscionable for the credit union to seek judgment.
Applying the principles governing summary judgment, the court concluded that it was very clear neither borrower had an arguable defence and that any issues to be tried were simple and easily determined. It therefore granted the summary judgment sought.
The judge noted a dispute about whether the required repayment for the first year of the revised arrangement had been met. Strain and Lynch said it had been paid when the full year, including the period before the revised arrangement was settled, was counted. The judge said that even if their account was accepted, it would not change the result. The judgment does not specify the terms of the final order beyond granting summary judgment.