High Court: Claim for nearly €1 million debt adjourned to plenary trial

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 635
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger determined, having regard to the conflicting expert reports from Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC and the defendants on the authenticity of the signatures on a letter of loan offer, that the defendants had established a serious issue and bona fide defence to the claim.

Background

The plaintiff, Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC, sought summary judgment against the defendants in the sum of €990,813.97 plus interest on foot of a number of loan facilities granted to them by Bank of Ireland in 2008.

The loan facilities had been secured by a charge on an industrial property in Co. Carlow, and were restructured and renewed by letter of loan offer dated May 2014. 

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants accepted and signed the May 2014 letter, which inter alia expressly confirmed that they were not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1995.

Alleging that the defendants had not adhered to the agreed repayment arrangements, the plaintiff sent letters of demand to the defendants in July 2023 seeking the repayment of the sums owing.

The defendants advanced a number of defences to the plaintiff’s application, including arguments based on the plaintiff’s status as a credit servicer, that the defendants were consumers, that they did not consent to the transfer of their debts from Bank of Ireland to the plaintiff, and that their signatures on the May 2014 letter of offer were forgeries.

The High Court

Ms Justice Bolger observed that in order to successfully resist the summary judgment application, the defendants were required to demonstrate a fair or reasonable probability of having a real or bona fide defence at trial as per Aer Rianta v Ryanair Ltd [2001] 4 IR 607.

The court also highlighted the principles set out in Harris Grange Limited v. Duncan [2003] 4 IR 1, including that leave to defend should be granted unless it is very clear that there is no defence, that the overriding determinative factor is the achievement of a just result, and that where issues of fact are in themselves material to success or failure, their resolution is unsuitable for the summary procedure.

Turning to the defences advanced by the defendants, Ms Justice Bolger opined that the purpose of the loan was “clearly commercial, being for the building of a commercial unit and it is therefore difficult to see how the defendants could maintain they were ever consumers within those loan arrangements.”

The judge further considered that no consent was required from the defendants in respect of the transfer of their loans, in circumstances where the bank’s standard terms and conditions included a right to assign.

The court was also unconvinced by the defendants’ arguments as to the plaintiff’s status as a credit servicer, finding that the allegations were repeated in a “complex and unclear manner” across some ten affidavits and that none of the arguments satisfied the court that the defendants had a bona fide defence to the claim.

Having addressed the remaining defence arguments, the High Court turned to the defendants’ contention that their signatures on the May 2014 letter of offer were forgeries.

Ms Justice Bolger acknowledged that the defendants had raised a serious issue having regard to the conflicting expert reports exhibited by both sides regarding the signatures.

In that respect, the judge explained that “Whilst the plaintiff maintains that there has been prior performance of the terms set out in the 2014 letter, the defendants maintain that the consequences identified in the letter of non-adherence to the repayment terms of facilities 1, 2 and 3 were not accepted by them and they were unaware of them, instead believing that their liability would be limited to the proceeds of sale of the commercial premises rather than retaining liability for the balance of the debt as set out in the letter on which the plaintiff now relies.”

Finding that the defendants had established a bona fide defence in relation to whether or not they had accepted the terms of the May 2014 letter, Ms Justice Bolger expressed that the validity of their purported acceptance was a central issue and given the evidential conflict, was a matter for the trial judge.

Conclusion

In the circumstances, the High Court adjourned the proceedings to plenary hearing.

Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC v Elliott & Anor [2026] IEHC 635