Judgment: 2013-11-04 · Court archive

High Court allows ACC Bank appeal over contested loan proceedings

The court ruled that the Master of the High Court could not strike out the bank’s summary summons because the defendants had filed affidavits opposing judgment. The case may now proceed to consideration of whether summary judgment is warranted.

High Court · [2013] IEHC 475

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • ACC Bank plc (Plaintiff)
  • Thomas Heffernan
  • Mary Heffernan (Defendant)
What

The court ruled that the Master of the High Court could not strike out the bank’s summary summons because the defendants had filed affidavits opposing judgment. The case may now proceed to consideration of whether summary judgment is warranted.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court allowed ACC Bank plc’s appeal against a decision to strike out its summary summons proceedings against Thomas Heffernan and Mary Heffernan. The court held that, because the defendants had filed affidavits disputing the bank’s claim, the Master of the High Court had no jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings on the ground that they should have begun by plenary summons.

The High Court allowed ACC Bank plc’s appeal against a decision to strike out its summary summons proceedings against Thomas Heffernan and Mary Heffernan. The court held that, because the defendants had filed affidavits disputing the bank’s claim, the Master of the High Court had no jurisdiction to strike out the proceedings on the ground that they should have begun by plenary summons.

The proceedings began in May 2011. ACC Bank contended that it had advanced €3.36 million to the defendants in September 2007 under a loan offer they accepted. The bank said it demanded €4,152,755 in principal and interest in February 2011. It later sought liberty to enter final judgment for €4,244,749, including further interest. The defendants filed three affidavits in response, setting out a defence. The judgment does not determine whether the bank is owed those sums.

Before the Master in July 2012, the bank submitted that the contested matter should be transferred to the High Court under Order 37, rule 6 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The defendants’ solicitor argued that the proceedings should be struck out because the bank knew they had a substantive defence when it started the case. In a reserved decision delivered in October 2012, the Master struck out the proceedings, while noting the bank could start again by plenary summons.

On appeal, Mr Justice Hogan held that the defendants’ affidavits made the case contested. Under Order 37, rule 6, the Master’s role in a contested case was to transfer it to the High Court when administratively ready for hearing, or, with the parties’ consent, adjourn it for plenary hearing. The Master could not resolve factual disputes, assess the likely strength of either side’s case, or decide that the claim should have been brought by plenary summons.

The appeal concerned the Master’s authority and the next procedural step. The High Court did not grant summary judgment or rule on the underlying loan dispute. It directed that the case proceed to consideration of the separate question of whether ACC Bank is entitled to summary judgment.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review