High Court refuses application summary judgment in the sum of €216,395.63 plus interest, and adjourned the proceedings to plenary hearing, on the grounds that the bank failed to demonstrate the original loan agreement, or any documents setting out the detailed terms and conditions in respect of the loan agreement, and the mandate before the Court does not mention the defendant’s bank account.
Application seeking summary judgment – judgment sought in the sum of €216,395.63 plus interest – whether the defendants had a bona fide defence – bank alleges that money was advanced on request – bank alleges that despite demands being made on the defendants, they had failed and neglected to repay the monies demanded, or any monies - terms and conditions – defendant argues that the bank’s terms and conditions are not exhibited – argued that the bank’s claim is not properly constituted, or in the alternative is not adequately constituted for the purpose of summary disposition by the court – factors which impacted negatively on the management of the overdraft and account – criminal activities of former employee – unable to get insurance as a result – partnership dissolved – ill health - valid counterclaim – argued that he was induced to invest by the bank in a loan fund – investment was lost – second defendant denied jointly maintaining account - original mandate cannot be found – test for determining whether case appropriate for summary judgment – mandate before the Court does not mention the Bank account - Court accepts that the current account of 00972035 is overdrawn to the sum of €216,395.63 - Court accepts that the bank has failed to demonstrate the original loan agreement, or any documents setting out the detailed terms and conditions in respect of the loan agreement – action adjourned to plenary hearing.