The High Court has allowed Bank of Ireland (UK) plc to be added as a plaintiff in proceedings over a loan to Derek Lee, Thomas Lee and Evaristas Ihaurula. The original plaintiff, The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland, remains in the case for a separate claim under a guarantee and indemnity.
The ruling was made by Mr Justice McDermott on 6 November 2015. The application concerned who could pursue the loan claim after the facility was transferred to Bank of Ireland (UK) plc under an English High Court order effective from 1 November 2010.
The proceedings seek €722,092, stated as capital and interest due on 8 January 2014, in connection with a €780,000 facility made in 2007. The judgment says €723,000 was to assist with the purchase of Molly’s Bar in Dunfanaghy, County Donegal, and its liquor licence; €57,000 was for interest during the 18-month term. The proceedings also include a separate claim for €17,554.39 under a 2008 guarantee and indemnity relating to Molly’s Bar Dunfanaghy Ltd. The guarantee was limited to €15,000 plus interest.
The bank group said the loan rights had transferred to the UK entity as part of a restructuring completed in 2010, and that customers were notified. It accepted that the proceedings had been started without taking account of that transfer, describing this as a bona fide mistake. The judgment records that the first defendant had received correspondence referring to the UK bank’s interest.
The judge found that the original bank had no interest in the loan cause of action after the transfer. He rejected the proposed addition under Order 15, Rule 2, finding that the original bank had intended to sue in its own name and mistakenly considered itself to hold the claim. The court therefore did not treat the error as the kind of mistake that rule allows to be corrected.
However, under Order 15, Rule 13, the judge ordered Bank of Ireland (UK) plc to be added as plaintiff for the loan claim. He found that the cause of action remained the same, the defendants had been made aware of the transfer, and no unfairness would result because the first defendant could still advance any defence. The original bank remains plaintiff for the guarantee claim. An amended summary summons must be served, and the court will hear counsel on any further directions. The judgment does not determine the merits of either debt claim.