Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd -v- Fortune & Anor [2014] IEHC 272 (16 May 2014)

Defendants failed to meet the low threshold of an arguable defence regarding sums due on the current account and the loan under the facility letter of 27th April, 2004; however, there is a genuine issue for determination regarding the construction and meaning of terms in the facility letter of 4th April, 2006,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2014] IEHC 272
Parties: Plaintiff: Ulster Bank Ireland Limited; Defendant: Sean Fortune; Defendant: Pauline Fortune
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 16 May 2014
Procedural Posture: Summary Summons / Application for Liberty to Enter Summary Judgment
Outcome: Summary judgment granted in part; leave to defend granted in part
Legal Topics: Summary Judgment, Loan Agreements, Default Provisions, Demand Requirements

Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Loan Agreements Default Provisions Demand Requirements

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Ulster Bank Ireland Limited

Plaintiff

Sean Fortune

Defendant

Pauline Fortune

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Summons / Application for Liberty to Enter Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for the sums claimed
2 Whether the defendants have an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim
3 Proper construction and interpretation of the facility letter dated 4th April, 2006

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in part; leave to defend granted in part

Orders

Liberty to enter summary judgment for sums due on current account and loan under facility letter of 27th April, 2004
Claim under facility letter of 4th April, 2006 to proceed to plenary hearing

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.