The High Court has granted John Crowley leave to seek judicial review of Circuit Court orders in a credit card debt case, finding it arguable that the hearing may have been unfair because the bank did not tell the court that the original card application could not be found.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys extended the time for Mr Crowley’s application and stayed enforcement of the judgment and execution order until the judicial review is finally determined. He did not decide whether the Circuit Court orders were unlawful; he ruled only that the specified fairness ground could proceed.
The bank had sought €17,955.88 in February 2012. The original credit card application, made around July 1989, was later unavailable. Mr Crowley received a data pack from the bank in February 2015, and documents were also provided following a Circuit Court disclosure order. The original application was missing from both packs.
In July 2015, the Circuit Court refused Mr Crowley’s application to strike out the proceedings and granted the bank summary judgment. It later refused his application to set that order aside. Mr Crowley then sought judicial review of the Circuit Court orders.
The High Court considered whether the missing agreement and the way the matter was presented at the summary judgment hearing raised an arguable issue of fairness or natural justice. The judge said the bank had told the Circuit Court that Mr Crowley had received the data pack, without telling it that the original application was absent because it could not be located. Although the bank’s later evidence said Mr Crowley had told the Circuit Court the application was missing, the judge considered it arguable that the court may have understood there to be a dispute about what had been supplied.
The judge said the missing agreement would not necessarily defeat a claim for the money advanced, but liability for interest could arguably depend on proof of an agreement. The bank’s claim had not separated principal from interest, so the judge stayed enforcement of the judgment as a whole rather than impose a partial stay.
The leave granted is confined to challenging the orders on the ground that the bank’s account of the data pack may have left out material information about the missing application. The court refused leave for the other proposed grounds and for damages and other relief. It directed Mr Crowley to file and serve an amended statement and originating notice of motion within three weeks. Costs were reserved.