Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd & Anor v Dean & Anor, High Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

McGovern J.

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd & Anor v. Dean & Anor

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a banking institution, brought two consolidated proceedings against two Defendants, who are brothers, seeking judgment for the sum of €19,876,130.55. The claims arise from two loan agreements evidenced by facility letters dated 12th September 2008, and a guarantee dated 2nd December 2008 under which each Defendant guaranteed the other's liabilities to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment, and there was no dispute as to the amount claimed. The Defendants contended that they had a bona fide defence and sought to have the matter remitted to plenary hearing, asserting the existence of a collateral agreement that the loans were repayable only upon the sale of certain properties.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Defendants have demonstrated a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence sufficient to resist summary judgment.
Whether the Defendants can rely on alleged collateral or side agreements to alter the terms of the written loan facility letters.
The applicability of the parol evidence rule in excluding oral evidence that contradicts the written loan agreements.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

They assert a bona fide defence based on an alleged collateral agreement that the loans were repayable only upon the sale of sites at Stocking Lane, Dublin.
They claim the loans were understood to be long-term and not repayable on demand, supported by oral assurances from the Plaintiff's representatives.
They rely on verbal discussions and a collateral agreement analogous to cases such as City and Westminster Properties Ltd. v. Mudd and AIB v. Galvin Developments (Killarney) Ltd.

Plaintiff's Arguments

The Plaintiff contends that the loan agreements are clear, written demand loan facilities payable on demand.
They deny the existence of any collateral or side agreement, supported by affidavits from the Plaintiff's relationship manager and another officer.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' reliance on oral evidence contradicting the written agreements is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Banque de Paris v. de Naray [1984] 1 Lloyd's Law Rep. 21	Legal test for summary judgment requiring a real or bona fide defence to be shown.	Adopted as the standard to assess whether Defendants have a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence.
First National Commercial Bank v. Anglin [1996] 1 JR. 75	Reaffirmed the summary judgment test from Banque de Paris.	Referenced to support the test for summary judgment.
National Westminster Bank Plc v. Daniel [1993] 1 WL.R. 1453	Principle that mere assertion of defence in affidavit does not automatically grant leave to defend.	Used to emphasize the court's scrutiny of the bona fide defence claim.
Aer Rianta v. Ryanair Limited [2001] 4 JR. 607	Clarified that the hurdle for defendants on summary judgment is low but requires more than a mere assertion.	Applied to assess the Defendants' affidavits and the strength of their defence.
Macklin v. Graecen & Co [1983] I.R. 61	Illustrates the parol evidence rule barring oral evidence contradicting written contracts.	Supported the exclusion of Defendants' oral evidence contradicting the facility letters.
O'Neill v. Ryan [1992] 1 I.R. 166	Reinforces the parol evidence rule in contract interpretation.	Used to uphold the inadmissibility of the Defendants' oral evidence.
City and Westminster Properties Ltd. v. Mudd [1958] 2 ALL ER 733	Established criteria for collateral agreements overriding written leases.	Distinguished on facts; the Defendants' case lacked the detailed negotiations and written support found there.
AIB v. Galvin Developments (Killarney) Ltd. [2011] IEHC 314	Confirmed the existence of collateral contracts where written Heads of Agreement limited bank's recourse.	Distinguished as the Defendants failed to produce any written document or credible evidence of such an agreement.
Industrial Steel Plant Ltd. v. Smith [1980] 1 N.Z.L.R. 545	Explained the nature of collateral contracts as preliminary agreements that induce the main contract.	Referenced to clarify the concept of collateral contracts, which were not established in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by confirming the undisputed sum claimed by the Plaintiff under the two loan facility letters and the guarantee. It applied the established legal test for summary judgment, requiring a real or bona fide defence to be shown by the Defendants. The court found that the loan agreements were, on their face, demand loan facilities payable on demand.

The Defendants' claim that the loans were long-term and repayable only upon the sale of certain properties was supported solely by oral evidence, which the court held inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, citing controlling authorities. The court rejected the Defendants' attempt to rely on collateral agreements, noting the absence of any written documentation or credible evidence to support such agreements. It distinguished the Defendants' case from precedents where collateral contracts were found, emphasizing the lack of detailed negotiations or written heads of agreement in the present case.

Although the Defendants and their accountant expressed an understanding of a long-term banking relationship, the court held this was merely aspirational and did not constitute a legal obligation. The court also examined the specific purposes of the loans and found no connection between the personal loans and the separate demand loan facility to the Defendants' company for site purchase and development.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the Defendants' affidavits failed to disclose even an arguable defence and that the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favour of the Plaintiff for the sum claimed.

This decision directly results in a judgment against the Defendants for the full amount of the loans and guarantees. The ruling reinforces the strict application of the parol evidence rule in excluding oral evidence that contradicts clear written loan agreements and confirms the high threshold for establishing collateral agreements in the absence of written documentation or credible evidence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of well-settled principles.