- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Everyday Finance Designated Activity Company v Flood (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by the plaintiff, a designated activity company ("Everyday"), seeking liberty to enter judgment against the defendant, the widow and legal personal representative of the deceased, in the sum of approximately €11.6 million. The claim arises from two guarantees executed by the deceased in May 2007, which secured loan facilities advanced to the deceased's three sons engaged in property development.
The deceased was the sole registered owner of extensive lands in County Meath, including quarry lands and a family home, registered under a single folio. The guarantees were supported by a charge over these lands. It was not appreciated at the time by the bank, the deceased, or his solicitor that the family home was included in the charged lands, and the charge was executed without the prior written consent of the deceased's wife as required by the Family Home Protection Act 1976. Possession proceedings relating to the family home are pending in the Circuit Court, but this Court was not required to determine the validity of the charge.
The deceased operated a quarry business until retirement and leased quarry lands to a company run by his son. The sons formed a partnership and sought to finance the purchase of a development site in Sutton, Dublin, through loans from the bank. The deceased provided guarantees secured by the charge over his lands. The development scheme ultimately failed, the site was sold at a loss, and judgment has been entered against two of the sons and one son's guarantee. The deceased died in 2012, having been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease after the guarantees were executed.
The proceedings were initiated in 2014, initially against an administrator ad litem but later substituted to the defendant following grant of probate. The defendant pleaded multiple defences challenging the validity of the guarantees, including lack of capacity, undue influence, unconscionable bargain, inadequate independent legal advice, and breaches of statutory duties by the bank.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the deceased lacked capacity at the time of executing the guarantees and whether the bank knew or ought to have known of any incapacity, rendering the guarantees voidable.
- Whether the guarantees were procured by actual or presumed undue influence exerted by the deceased's son.
- Whether the guarantees constituted an improvident or unconscionable transaction.
- Whether the independent legal advice given to the deceased was adequate and sufficient to rebut any presumption of undue influence.
- Whether the bank took reasonable steps to ensure the guarantees were given freely and with informed consent, thereby justifying enforcement by the plaintiff.
- Whether the charge over the lands is invalid due to failure to obtain the defendant's consent under the Family Home Protection Act 1976.
- Whether claims of misrepresentation and negligence regarding the valuation of the lands succeed.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone [1892] 1 Q.B. 599 | Contracts made by persons lacking capacity are voidable if the other party knew or ought to have known of the incapacity. | Applied to determine that the bank had no actual or constructive notice of the deceased's incapacity, so guarantees are enforceable. |
| Hart v. O'Connor [1985] A.C. 1000 | Restatement of the law on capacity and voidability of contracts entered into by persons lacking capacity. | Supported the legal framework applied to the incapacity issue. |
| Dunhill v. Burgin [2014] 1 W.L.R. 933 | Confirmed the rule on capacity and voidability in England and Wales. | Reinforced the applicable legal principle on incapacity. |
| Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch. D. 145 | Foundation of law on undue influence, distinguishing actual and presumed undue influence. | Guided the court’s analysis on undue influence and presumption arising from the relationship. |
| Gregg v. Kidd [1956] I.R. 183 | Undue influence can be exerted by a third party; solicitor’s duty to advise on improvident transactions. | Used to assess the nature of the relationship and adequacy of legal advice. |
| Carroll v. Carroll [1999] 4 IR 241 | Requirements for independent legal advice to rebut presumption of undue influence; solicitor must advise on advisability of transaction. | Applied to evaluate the adequacy and independence of the legal advice given to the deceased. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland v. Etridge (No. 2) [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1021 | Standards for independent legal advice to vulnerable parties guaranteeing loans. | Considered in assessing whether the advice met the minimum requirements, though the court found local authorities decisive. |
| Ulster Bank v. Roche [2012] 1 IR 765 | Bank's obligation to inquire into potential undue influence where a guarantee is given by a vulnerable party. | Guided the court’s view that the bank was on inquiry and took reasonable steps to ensure independent advice. |
| Tynan v. Kilkenny County Registrar & Anor [2011] IEHC 250 | Confirmation that banks may rely on solicitor’s confirmation of independent advice to satisfy inquiry obligation. | Supported the conclusion that the bank reasonably relied on solicitor’s confirmation of advice. |
| Grealish v. Murphy [1946] I.R. 35 | Principles on improvident transactions and setting aside of transactions where donor is vulnerable. | Applied to conclude the guarantees were improvident transactions liable to be set aside. |
| Inche Noriah v. Shaik Allie Bin Omar [1929] A.C. 127 | Solicitor’s obligation to advise client fully on the desirability of the transaction and to understand client’s circumstances. | Referenced in support of the duty of solicitors to fully appraise and advise vulnerable clients. |
| Regina (Proctor) v. Hutton [1978] N.I. 139 | Presumption of undue influence can be rebutted by credible evidence of voluntary and informed decision. | Discussed in relation to rebuttal of presumption without independent advice. |
| Re Cox deceased [2023] IEHC 100 | Emphasized the need for solicitor to advise on advisability of transaction and to understand client’s circumstances. | Used to reinforce the inadequacy of the legal advice given in this case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed the issue of the deceased's capacity to enter into the guarantees. Applying well-established legal principles, the court found that the bank had no knowledge or reason to suspect the deceased lacked capacity at the time of execution. The deceased was found capable of understanding the nature of the transactions in May 2007, supported by medical evidence indicating no formal diagnosis of dementia until 2009 and independent solicitor testimony confirming capacity.
Regarding undue influence, the court distinguished between actual undue influence and presumed undue influence. It rejected the claim of actual undue influence, finding the evidence of the deceased's son, who alleged pressure, to be unreliable and contradicted by solicitor testimony and contemporaneous records indicating the deceased was seen alone during legal consultations.
However, the court found that the relationship between the deceased and his son was such as to raise a presumption of undue influence, given the deceased’s reliance on his son for managing his affairs and the significant benefit the son and his brothers derived from the guarantees. The onus was on the plaintiff to rebut this presumption.
The plaintiff argued that independent legal advice was given to the deceased, which could rebut the presumption. The court accepted that the solicitors acted independently, but found the advice inadequate. The solicitors failed to fully inform themselves of the deceased's assets, did not advise on the risks or prudence of the transaction, and wrongly led the deceased to believe that only quarry lands were at risk, not the family home or other assets. This inadequacy meant the presumption of undue influence was not rebutted.
The court also considered whether the guarantees constituted an improvident transaction. Given the extent of the guarantees exceeded the value of the quarry lands and the deceased’s misunderstanding of the risks, the court found the guarantees were improvident and liable to be set aside on that basis as well.
Despite these findings, the court held that the bank was not on notice of these deficiencies and had taken reasonable steps by requiring independent legal advice and receiving solicitor confirmations. The bank was entitled to rely on the guarantees as having been given freely and with informed consent, and thus they are enforceable by the plaintiff.
On the charge over the lands, the court noted the failure to obtain the defendant’s consent under the Family Home Protection Act but held this issue was properly for determination in separate possession proceedings in the Circuit Court.
The defendant’s counterclaims alleging misrepresentation and negligence regarding the valuation of the lands failed for lack of evidence that the valuation was negligent or that it was communicated to the deceased or his solicitor.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision is to ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF against the defendant in the sum of €10,782,867.58, reflecting a waiver of interest from the date of demand.
This judgment confirms that the guarantees executed by the deceased are enforceable by the plaintiff, notwithstanding findings of undue influence and improvident transaction, because the bank took reasonable steps to ensure independent legal advice was obtained and was not on notice of any inadequacy or undue influence. The decision does not resolve the validity of the charge over the family home, which remains subject to separate proceedings.
No new legal precedent is established by this judgment; rather, it applies established principles concerning capacity, undue influence, improvident transactions, and the bank’s duty of inquiry in guarantee enforcement cases.
Alert