Judgment: 2018-12-20 · Court archive

High Court grants AIB summary judgment against two defendants over €190,600 loan

The court rejected the defendants’ proposed defences concerning an alleged forged signature, consideration and consumer credit protections, and ordered judgment for the Bank in the amount claimed.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 744

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Allied Irish Banks plc (Plaintiff)
  • Patrick Gormley
  • James Gormley (Defendant)
What

The court rejected the defendants’ proposed defences concerning an alleged forged signature, consideration and consumer credit protections, and ordered judgment for the Bank in the amount claimed.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Coolaney, County Sligo
  • Coolaney
  • County Sligo
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge found the evidence on the alleged forgery too weak and unreliable to establish a credible defence for the summary judgment application. The court also rejected the argument that the 2010 facility lacked consideration because no new funds had been advanced. It accepted that, on Patrick Gormley’s own account, signing the new facility bought time before likely legal proceedings, and held that the Bank’s implicit forbearance from suing on the prior loan was sufficient consideration.

The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against Patrick Gormley and James Gormley over a €190,600 loan facility issued in November 2010, concluding that neither defendant had shown a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence. The judgment does not state the amount claimed in its conclusion.

The case concerned the fifth in a series of facilities linked to a 2005 commercial loan. That original borrowing funded the purchase and planned development of property in Coolaney, County Sligo. The judgment records that the defendants were registered as owners of the properties, and that successive facilities in 2006, 2009 and October 2010 restructured or renewed the debt after repayment defaults.

The November 2010 facility was for €190,600. Patrick Gormley admitted signing it; James Gormley denied doing so and said he had no knowledge of the loan until a demand letter in November 2014. The judge reviewed inconsistencies in James Gormley’s affidavits, including his account that his son had signed his name without authority and his later statement that the document appeared to bear his own signature. The judgment also noted evidence that the Bank had sent him earlier arrears letters, and that he said his son collected correspondence left at his house.

The judge found the evidence on the alleged forgery too weak and unreliable to establish a credible defence for the summary judgment application. The court also rejected the argument that the 2010 facility lacked consideration because no new funds had been advanced. It accepted that, on Patrick Gormley’s own account, signing the new facility bought time before likely legal proceedings, and held that the Bank’s implicit forbearance from suing on the prior loan was sufficient consideration.

The defendants also argued that the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applied. The judge held that the original loan was for business purposes and that the later facilities refinanced that commercial borrowing, so the Act did not apply to the 2010 facility.

The court therefore granted summary judgment to the Bank in the amount claimed. The judgment does not give that amount in its final order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review