The High Court has refused Stapleford Finance DAC’s application for summary judgment against Yvonne Tuthill and Alison Tuthill over a claimed €143,364.89 debt, sending the case to a plenary hearing instead.
Mr Justice MacGrath said he was not satisfied that it was clear the defendants had no arguable defence. The ruling does not determine whether the guarantees were valid or whether either defendant is liable.
The claim arises from a €250,000 loan facility granted in 2001 by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation to Adson Salons Limited, repayable over 84 months. Stapleford says it acquired the benefit of securities connected with the loan through a 2014 transfer from the special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. It sought judgment under Order 37 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The first defendant, Yvonne Tuthill, said she never signed a personal guarantee and disputed that her letter of 12 December 2015 admitted liability. She said she understood that the bank had agreed to remove her as guarantor, and that her shareholding in Inishbirch Limited had been the security. She also argued that the guarantee had not been produced and that the facility letter did not contain the essential terms required to establish a guarantee under the Statute of Frauds.
Stapleford relied on the facility letter, which lists personal guarantees from both defendants as security, and on a section recording their acknowledgement that they guaranteed the borrower’s obligations. It also argued that Ms Tuthill’s 2015 letter admitted liability and that payments into Adson’s account supported its claim.
The judge said the company’s loan repayments could not be treated as an admission of liability under the alleged guarantees. He considered it arguable that the facility letter and the guarantee wording should be read together, and that a potential conflict between them could support a defence. At this stage, the court needed only to find that the proposed defence was arguable; it did not have to decide whether it would succeed at trial.
The second defendant had not sworn an affidavit, and the judge said her position was less clear. In the interests of justice, he referred the entire matter to a plenary hearing so that issues about both defendants’ liability and the validity of the guarantees could be examined. The court refused the summary relief sought; it made no finding on the ultimate merits of the claim.