The Court of Appeal has dismissed Maureen Curran’s challenge to a High Court summary judgment ordering her to pay Bank of Ireland €1 million under a guarantee for the debts of XL Fuels Group Ltd.
The appeal concerned whether Mrs Curran had shown a credible defence that required the bank’s claim to proceed to a full hearing. The court, in a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 21 December 2016, concluded she had not. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court judgment in place.
The bank’s summary summons, issued in October 2015, relied on a guarantee dated 28 May 2008. Mrs Curran’s son, Michael Curran, was also a defendant in the proceedings. The guarantee was signed at Mrs Curran’s home, at her request, in the presence of two bank officials. Her son was not present. The court recorded that she signed in three places, including beneath a warning about liability and a statement, written in her hand after being read out by a bank official, that she understood the liability and did not want independent legal advice.
Mrs Curran advanced three possible defences: undue influence, unconscionable bargain and non est factum, a plea that a signed document was fundamentally different from what the signer believed it to be. The Court of Appeal assessed whether her affidavit evidence raised an arguable defence at the summary judgment stage; it did not conduct a full trial of those claims.
On undue influence, the court said Mrs Curran had made a bald assertion but provided no facts or detail showing that her son had overborne her will when she signed. It also found no evidence that the bank had actual or constructive notice of undue influence. The court said it was therefore unnecessary to address further questions about the bank’s inquiries or the legal advice she received.
The court also agreed that her evidence did not establish the elements of an unconscionable bargain, including serious disadvantage and a transaction at an undervalue. It noted the guarantee supported additional banking facilities for the company. On non est factum, it agreed that the document identified itself as a €1 million guarantee distinct from earlier security.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge had been correct to grant summary judgment because Mrs Curran had not established an arguable or credible defence. The ruling addressed whether the case should be sent to a full hearing; the court did not conduct that hearing.