The Court of Appeal has refused John Hanrahan’s application for more time to appeal a High Court judgment ordering him to pay Irish Life and Permanent plc, trading as Permanent TSB, €292,727 plus costs.
The application concerned the deadline to appeal an expedited decision. The High Court, presided over by Noonan J., entered judgment against Mr Hanrahan on 25 April 2017. The order was perfected on 16 May, and the appeal rules required his appeal to be filed within ten days. He applied on 13 June for an extension.
The bank’s claim arose from a €300,000 overdraft facility agreed in November 2010 and due to expire at the end of January 2011. Mr Hanrahan did not dispute the facility or its expiry. The bank sought judgment against him alone, claiming €240,957.20 in principal and €51,769.80 in interest. It did not seek judgment against his wife, Selina Hanrahan, who was also named as a defendant in the proceedings.
Mr Hanrahan argued that his proposed appeal had grounds that warranted a full hearing. He complained that the bank had misled the High Court about his wife’s involvement with the account and raised alleged misconduct by a bank branch manager. He also relied on the handling of €90,000 paid into his account from damages awarded in separate proceedings, a €9,090.62 quarterly interest debit, and the bank’s decision to demand repayment without first telephoning him.
Justice Irvine said the dispute about Mrs Hanrahan’s involvement did not provide a defence because the bank was pursuing Mr Hanrahan alone. The court also found that the complaints about the €90,000 payment concerned the Chief State Solicitor’s office, not the bank, and that the payment reduced Mr Hanrahan’s debt. The interest debit was consistent with the account’s prior operation, the judgment said. The bank was not legally obliged to call before demanding repayment, and the fact that it had security for the loan did not defeat its claim.
The court considered the established test for extending time to appeal. The bank did not dispute that Mr Hanrahan had formed an intention to appeal within the permitted period. Justice Irvine accepted that his explanation for missing the deadline was less than satisfactory, but said it would be unjust to refuse an extension on that basis alone, taking account of his status as a lay litigant. The application therefore turned on whether he had shown a bona fide, credible defence.
The court concluded he had not. It refused the extension of time. The judgment addressed only whether the appeal deadline should be extended; it did not decide the proposed appeal against the High Court judgment.