The Court of Appeal has dismissed Elaine Heffernan’s appeals against summary judgments in favour of AIB Mortgage Bank and Allied Irish Banks PLC, affirming the High Court’s decisions to allow final judgment on loans linked to investment properties, a proposed quarry and an overdraft.
The High Court originally entered judgment of €844,737.54 in the mortgage proceedings, later amended to €602,883.95, and €242,292.98 in the separate proceedings brought by Allied Irish Banks PLC. The combined amended total is €845,176.93. The Court of Appeal’s judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Woulfe on 14 December 2022, dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s decisions.
Ms Heffernan argued that bank representations had linked repayment of the loans to obtaining planning permission for a quarry on her land. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that this account was inconsistent with the signed loan documents and her later conduct, and did not establish an arguable defence requiring a full trial. The court also rejected her procedural complaints, including that she had been refused another adjournment after her solicitors came off record and that she had not been allowed to make separate submissions in the mortgage proceedings.
The court did not decide conclusively whether Ms Heffernan was a consumer for the purposes of the unfair-terms regulations. It assumed that possibility for the purpose of considering the appeal. Ms Heffernan’s counsel identified surcharge interest on arrears as a potentially unfair term, but that issue had not been argued in detail. The judgment said surcharge interest appeared probably not to have been charged on the accounts other than the overdraft, and the court would seek confirmation from the respondents. If they maintain a claim for surcharge interest, further submissions would be needed on whether the terms fell outside the core terms of the agreements and whether they were unfair.
The court also rejected arguments concerning the lenders’ signatures and stamps on loan documents, the names used on demand letters, and Everyday Finance DAC’s status as a party. It held that the relevant 2021 orders adding Everyday as a co-respondent had not been appealed and could not be challenged in this way.
The appeal judgment therefore upheld the High Court’s summary-judgment decisions. Its discussion of possible further submissions was limited to any surcharge-interest claim the respondents might maintain.