Background
Mars Capital sought summary judgment for €990,813.97 plus interest under four demand loan facilities originally granted by Bank of Ireland in 2008 and secured over commercial and industrial property in Carlow. The bank restructured and renewed the facilities through a May 2014 letter of offer. Mars Capital acquired the loans and mortgage by transfer in April 2023 and issued demands in July 2023.
The defendants, acting in person, raised several objections, including that they were consumers, had not consented to the transfer, and that Mars Capital was merely a credit servicer. Their central defence, however, was that they had not signed the purported acceptance of the 2014 offer letter. They contended that the signatures were forged and that they had not accepted the restructuring terms or continuing liability for the balance of the debt.
The Court’s Holding
Ms Justice Bolger refused summary judgment and directed that the dispute proceed to plenary hearing. Although the defendants had the benefit of the original loans, the Court held that they had established a bona fide defence concerning whether they accepted the terms of the May 2014 restructuring letter.
Each side had produced expert handwriting evidence reaching opposing conclusions on the signatures. That evidential conflict, together with the defendants’ case that they did not know or accept the asserted consequences of non-compliance with the restructuring arrangements, created an issue central to the claim that could not properly be resolved on summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A disputed signature on a loan-restructure acceptance can provide a bona fide defence requiring a plenary trial.
- Conflicting expert handwriting evidence made summary determination inappropriate.
- The Court rejected the defendants’ other objections, including their challenge to the assignment and Mars Capital’s standing, but those findings did not eliminate the central signature dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limits of summary judgment in commercial debt cases. Even where borrowing and some repayment are clear, a genuine dispute over the contractual terms said to govern a later restructuring may require a trial.
The Court indicated that the motion costs should be costs in the cause, leaving the ultimate costs position for the trial judge.