Danske Bank v Shortt & anor (Approved) [2020] IECA 137 (19 May 2020)

Danske Bank v Shortt & anor (Approved) [2020] IECA 137 (19 May 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that, even assuming the admissibility of the appellants’ oral evidence regarding alleged assurances by bank officials, the evidence was not sufficiently cogent or credible to meet the threshold required to resist summary judgment. The alleged counterclaim was vague, unrelated to the guarantee, and unsupported by evidence. The claim of mental vulnerability was a bare assertion without medical support. Accordingly, no arguable defence was established and summary judgment was properly granted.

Citation
[2020] IECA 137
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Danske Bank A/S trading as Danske Bank; Appellant/defendant: Martin Shortt; Appellant/defendant: Pauline Shortt
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Summary Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Collateral Contract, Guarantee Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Set Off, Consideration in Contracts
Contract Law Banking Law Parol Evidence Rule Collateral Contract Guarantee Enforcement Summary Judgment Set Off Consideration in 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danske Bank A/S trading as Danske Bank

Plaintiff/respondent

Martin Shortt

Appellant/defendant

Pauline Shortt

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had an arguable defence to summary judgment on foot of a guarantee, including alleged oral assurances, counterclaim, and mental vulnerability; Whether parol evidence was admissible to contradict or vary the written guarantee; Whether the evidence was sufficient to resist summary judgment and require a plenary hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, even assuming the admissibility of the appellants’ oral evidence regarding alleged assurances by bank officials, the evidence was not sufficiently cogent or credible to meet the threshold required to resist summary judgment. The alleged counterclaim was vague, unrelated to the guarantee, and unsupported by evidence. The claim of mental vulnerability was a bare assertion without medical support. Accordingly, no arguable defence was established and summary judgment was properly granted.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in the amount claimed is affirmed.
  • No remittal to plenary hearing; appellants remain free to litigate any independent claims in separate proceedings.