The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against Joseph Smith for €109,957.37, finding he had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence. The judgment says the bank sought no interest on the debt from the start of proceedings on 9 July 2013.
AIB’s claim concerned €21,943.42 on a current account and €88,013.95 on a loan account. The bank relied on evidence that Smith maintained both accounts at its Cavan branch and that the account terms provided for interest and repayment on demand. It said he owed €21,000 on the current account and €68,480.26 on the loan account as of 28 April 2009.
Smith argued that he had a bona fide defence and that the case should proceed to a plenary hearing. He relied on an alleged side agreement for a 1% set-off on client-account funds, saying he had borrowed on the basis of that arrangement. He also raised complaints about interest, questioned two account slips from 2006 and 2007, and said documentation was missing.
The judgment records a 2011 bank letter proposing to write off charges and some interest, with a net settlement figure of €76,671.40 stated in one passage and €76,671.46 in the quoted payment condition. A separate facility letter referred to an interest set-off arrangement against client-account funds at 3%. The judge considered a partly legible letter Smith relied on, which appeared to refer to a 1% charge being waived, but noted that its second page was absent and that it did not clearly establish a 1% set-off between the two accounts.
The judge also noted Smith’s account of discussions with the bank, his complaint to its customer services division, and his 2014 information requests. The judgment says he had no correspondence or notes supporting the alleged discussions. On the disputed slips, the judge considered that the bank could make the transactions without authorising withdrawal slips. The judge further observed that a claim relating to a loan dating from 1986 would have been statute barred in 2002.
Applying the summary judgment test, the court considered the issues simple and readily determinable, and not material to the defence’s success or failure. It concluded that Smith had not met the threshold for leave to defend and stated that it proposed to grant judgment as sought. The judgment records that proposal; it does not set out a separate formal order.