The Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland v Roarty & Anor [2019] IECA 62 (22 February 2019)

The Governor and Company of Bank of Ireland v Roarty & Anor [2019] IECA 62 (22 February 2019)

The defendants failed to demonstrate a defence with a real prospect of success to the bank's claim under the guarantees. The guarantees were not limited to company assets, no misrepresentation was substantiated, the waiver of legal advice was valid, and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations did not apply as the guarantees related to business loans. The default judgment was regularly obtained and the High Court applied the correct legal test in refusing to set it aside.

Citation
[2019] IECA 62
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Defendant/appellant: John Roarty; Defendant/appellant: Paula Roarty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Personal Guarantees, Misrepresentation, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Civil Procedure Banking Law Contract Law Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Personal Guarantees Misrepresentation Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland

Plaintiff/respondent

John Roarty

Defendant/appellant

Paula Roarty

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Refusing to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to set aside a default judgment against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had entered a valid appearance
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had a defence with a reasonable prospect of success to the bank's claim under personal guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to demonstrate a defence with a real prospect of success to the bank's claim under the guarantees. The guarantees were not limited to company assets, no misrepresentation was substantiated, the waiver of legal advice was valid, and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations did not apply as the guarantees related to business loans. The default judgment was regularly obtained and the High Court applied the correct legal test in refusing to set it aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against refusal to set aside default judgment dismissed
  • Appeal against striking out of Mr Roarty's application dismissed