The Court of Appeal has dismissed Gerry Ward’s appeal against an order allowing the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland to amend its debt claim and file further affidavit evidence. The appeal did not determine whether Ward owed the amounts claimed or whether the bank’s amendments had cured deficiencies in its case.
The bank’s summary summons, issued in 2017, sought €776,024.34, plus interest and costs, in connection with two mortgage loans originally provided by ICS Building Society. In March 2020, the High Court refused the bank’s application for summary judgment, finding that the summons did not adequately explain how the claimed sum had been calculated. It allowed the bank to apply to amend its claim and provide further evidence.
The bank later sought permission to amend the summons with particulars of principal and interest, including a statement of account, and to rely on affidavits sworn by two bank employees in July 2021. The High Court granted permission. It also gave the bank two weeks to deliver the amended summons and serve the further affidavits, and gave Ward four weeks after receiving them to file any response. The High Court made no order for costs on that motion and refused Ward’s application for a stay.
Ward argued on appeal that the bank had delayed too long, that the amendments did not address the earlier deficiencies, and that allowing further evidence was procedurally unfair and beyond the court’s powers. He also argued that he had discharged the alleged debt with a promissory note and raised other possible defences.
The Court of Appeal held that the delay was adequately explained by the Covid-19 restrictions and the difficulties in getting the motion listed. It found no basis to overturn the decision to allow the amendments, which were directed at particularising the bank’s claim, and concluded that Ward had not shown irremediable prejudice. It also upheld permission to file the affidavits, noting that Ward had seen draft copies before the hearing and had an opportunity to respond.
The court stressed that the appeal concerned only the amendment and evidence applications. Whether the bank’s evidence establishes the debt, whether any gaps have been filled, and whether Ward has an arguable defence remain for consideration when the bank’s summary judgment application resumes. The court dismissed the appeal on all grounds. It proposed that the bank receive its costs of the appeal, subject to either party seeking a different order within 21 days of receiving the electronic judgment.