Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Ltd -v- McLoughlin [2015] IECA 14 (29 January 2015)

Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Ltd -v- McLoughlin [2015] IECA 14 (29 January 2015)

The defendant produced sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate a fair or reasonable probability of having a real or bona fide defence, specifically that the liability may rest with his company and not him personally. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate and the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

Citation
[2015] IECA 14
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Limited; Defendant/appellant: Frank (Orse Frankie) McLoughlin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Personal Liability Vs. Corporate Liability, Debt Repayment Agreements
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Personal Liability Vs. Corporate Liability Debt Repayment Agreements

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Frank (Orse Frankie) McLoughlin

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is personally liable for the debt or if the liability rests with his company, McLoughlin Developments Limited
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has demonstrated a fair or reasonable probability of having a real or bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant produced sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate a fair or reasonable probability of having a real or bona fide defence, specifically that the liability may rest with his company and not him personally. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate and the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Summary judgment set aside
  • Defendant granted leave to defend the proceedings