The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Osborne’s appeal against a High Court order granting the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland liberty to enter final judgment for €50,000 under a guarantee. The appeal court affirmed the High Court decision, which arose from summary proceedings, and said Mr Osborne had not established an arguable defence.
The dispute concerned a €50,000 overdraft facility made available to Coregreen Limited in November 2007 to assist with working capital. Mr Osborne signed the company’s acceptance of the facility offer and a personal guarantee covering the company’s liabilities up to €50,000, plus interest. The company used the facility in connection with buying an advertising truck. The bank demanded payment under the guarantee in March 2012, when the company owed it more than €50,000.
In the High Court, Mr Osborne said he had expected to sign a hire purchase agreement and argued that the guarantee or overdraft arrangement was temporary, pending such an agreement. The bank disputed that account. The High Court granted the bank liberty to enter final judgment in December 2018, finding there was no bona fide defence. Mr Osborne appealed.
On appeal, his counsel identified five issues, including an allegedly mistaken company name in the offer letter, documents concerning another person named James Osborne, an alleged breach of a practice direction for proceedings involving a litigant in person, and the bank’s refusal of an offer to transfer the truck in settlement. The court found none disclosed an arguable defence. It said the erroneous reference to another company in the offer letter and the mistakenly supplied documents concerning a different James Osborne were not material to liability under the guarantee. It also found that the practice direction did not address the provision of a booklet of legal authorities, and that the bank had explained it could reconsider an offer of sale proceeds from the truck.
The court also rejected the “temporary arrangement” argument. It pointed to the company’s cheque to buy the truck on 12 November 2007, before Mr Osborne approached the bank for finance the following day, and to the absence of any recorded reference to an intended hire purchase agreement until his first affidavit in 2015. The court concluded that the argument was unsupported and inconsistent with the documents and earlier communications.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court decision affirmed. The judge’s provisional view was that the bank should receive its appeal costs. Either party could seek a brief further hearing on costs within 14 days; absent such an application, an order on the proposed terms would be made.