- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v McCaughey
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A (formerly a commercial bank, now in special liquidation) advanced a series of loans to Defendant between September 2006 and March 2007. The money was used to fund Defendant’s participation in several bank-promoted investment projects, most notably “Investment Fund 1” and “Investment Fund 2.” Each loan agreement was expressed to be repayable “on demand” and, in any event, by March 2008.
When the loans were not repaid, Company A issued High Court proceedings for the outstanding sums and moved for summary judgment. Defendant resisted the motion, alleging (a) collateral agreements that repayment would not be demanded until the relevant investment concluded and (b) various mis-selling claims. Judge Kelly granted summary judgment on some loans, remitted others to plenary hearing, and entered final judgment for €2,516,590.45 in respect of the loans tied to Investment Fund 1 and Investment Fund 2.
Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging (i) the finding that both funds had ended, (ii) the dismissal of the counter-claim as statute-barred or unarguable, and (iii) the entry of partial judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Defendant had an arguable defence that Company A was contractually or equitably precluded from demanding repayment until each investment fund had formally ended.
- Whether the alleged counter-claims for mis-selling could defeat or reduce Company A’s claim, or were statute-barred and/or an abuse of process.
- The correct application of the Irish summary-judgment test in light of established jurisprudence.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff/Respondent (Company A)
- No credible evidence supported the alleged collateral agreements; the written facilities were clear and repayable on demand.
- Both investment funds had effectively ended; therefore, even if collateral agreements existed, any postponement of demand had expired.
- Mis-selling allegations were either res judicata (Investment Fund 2) or devoid of factual foundation (Investment Fund 1) and, in any event, statute-barred.
Defendant/Appellant
- Bank officials expressly promised that repayment would not be sought until each investment was wound up; those promises formed collateral contracts, or gave rise to representations/estoppel.
- Investment Fund 2 continued through a restructuring and therefore had not “ended,” preserving the defence.
- Mis-selling of both funds furnished a counter-claim and equitable set-off capable of defeating summary judgment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Aer Rianta c.p.t. v. Ryanair Ltd [2001] 4 IR 607 | Core test for summary judgment: whether it is “very clear” the defendant has no defence. | Adopted as the governing standard for assessing Defendant’s affidavits. |
| Bank of Ireland v. Walsh [2009] IEHC 220 | Meaning of “credible” defence; narrow circumstances for rejecting evidence on credibility grounds. | Reaffirmed that minor credibility disputes do not justify summary judgment. |
| National Westminster Bank v. Daniel [1993] 1 WLR 1453 | Examples where mutually contradictory affidavits render a defence incredible. | Cited to illustrate exceptional cases where credibility alone defeats a defence; distinguished on facts. |
| Banque de Paris v. de Naray [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21 | Summary dismissal where uncontested external evidence contradicts the defence. | Referenced in discussion of credibility thresholds. |
| First National Commercial Bank v. Anglin [1996] 1 IR 75 | Chronological inconsistency with undisputed documents can defeat a defence. | Used illustratively in credibility analysis. |
| Danske Bank v. Durkan New Homes [2010] IESC 22 | Discretion to decide or postpone complex legal issues on summary judgment. | Supported the court’s decision not to resolve disputed factual matters summarily. |
| McGrath v. O’Driscoll [2007] ILRM 203 | Summary judgment appropriate only for straightforward issues of construction. | Guided the court’s reluctance to construe alleged collateral terms without plenary evidence. |
| Lopes v. Minister for Justice [2014] IESC 21 | Flexibility in admitting additional evidence on appeal where a party risks being shut out of trial. | Justified receiving new affidavits filed during a stay application. |
| Barry v. Buckley [1981] IR 306 | Inherent power to dismiss proceedings bound to fail. | Referenced as analogous to summary-judgment context. |
| Henderson v. Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 | Abuse of process doctrine barring re-litigation of matters that could have been raised earlier. | Applied to bar fresh mis-selling allegations regarding Investment Fund 2. |
| Prendergast v. Biddle (SC, 31 Jul 1957) | Interaction between claims and cross-claims when part-judgment is sought. | Informed discussion of set-off and counter-claim principles. |
| Moohan v. S.&R. Motors [2008] 3 IR 650 | Criteria for withholding judgment where an equitable set-off is arguable. | Considered but found inapplicable once mis-selling claim held unarguable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Clarke, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, reiterated the settled summary-judgment principles and emphasised:
- The court must accept the defendant’s factual assertions unless they are clearly incredible or contradicted by incontrovertible documents.
- Collateral contracts alleged by Defendant were arguably established at the low threshold applicable, but only assist if the associated fund is still ongoing.
- Investment Fund 2: New affidavit evidence (filed during a stay application) showed the fund had re-structured, with the defendant’s partnership retaining a contingent interest in a redevelopment venture. This created an arguable case that the fund had not ended, preserving the collateral-contract defence. The court therefore set aside summary judgment on this loan.
- Investment Fund 1: Uncontested evidence demonstrated the underlying investment vehicle was insolvent, in liquidation, and incapable of returning value. On any view the fund had ended, so the collateral-contract defence could not arise. Summary judgment on these loans was affirmed.
- Mis-selling Counter-Claims:
- As to Investment Fund 2, the claims were already litigated to final judgment and were barred as an abuse of process.
- As to Investment Fund 1, Defendant produced no evidence of reliance or causal loss. Even if limitation issues were ignored, the claim was unarguable.
- The court accepted that, where summary judgment would finally dispose of a defence, some flexibility should be shown in admitting fresh evidence on appeal (per Lopes), hence the consideration of the updated Investment Fund 2 material.
Holding and Implications
PARTIAL ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment insofar as it related to the loan connected with Investment Fund 2 and remitted that claim to plenary hearing, limited strictly to the issue of whether the loan is presently repayable under the alleged collateral arrangement. The mis-selling claim regarding that fund is barred. The court affirmed summary judgment for Company A on all loans linked to Investment Fund 1.
Practically, Defendant now faces an immediate judgment debt for the Investment Fund 1 borrowing but gains the opportunity to contest liability for the Investment Fund 2 loan at trial. No new legal precedent was created; the judgment consolidates and clarifies existing principles on summary judgment, collateral contracts, and abuse of process.
Alert