Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against summary judgment in the sum of €3,364,961.00 entered against woman who claimed she signed a loan agreement, together with her husband, for the purchase of a property in Foxrock, County Dublin without independent legal advice, finding that she had not established on affidavit a reasonable probability that she has a real or bona fide defence to the bank’s claim.
Mortgages/loan agreements – practice and procedure – appeal against summary judgment – by order of the High Court dated 20th March 2013, AIB Mortgage Bank obtained judgment against Mr and Mrs Tracey for the sum of €3,364,961.00 on a joint and several basis - proceedings were commenced in respect of the recovery of monies borrowed by them, on a joint and several basis, for their purchase as co-owners of a substantial house on Westminster Road, Foxrock known as 'Hillside' - purchase was completed at the end of 2006 - whether the defendant has established on affidavit a reasonable probability that she has a real or bona fide defence to the bank’s claim against her – signed loan acceptance without independent legal advice – loan acceptance letter of the 5th September 2006 makes clear, however, that she had consulted her own solicitor concerning the implications for her arising from the sale of the existing family home and the intended purchase of Hillside - whether there is a sufficient bona fide defence at this stage of the proceedings in order to permit the matter to go to a full plenary hearing – matters put forward by Mrs Tracey by way of defence did not meet the threshold for the purpose of sending the matter to plenary hearing - trial judge was entitled to view the fact that she had accepted that she signed the acceptance of the loan agreement as being a critical factor - assertion that it was always understood by her and the bank that the loan would be non-recourse to her is inconsistent with the terms of the facility letter which she signed - it makes no reference to such non-recourse - appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.