Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd & Anor v Taggart & Anor [2012] NIQB 46 (22 June 2012)

Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd & Anor v Taggart & Anor [2012] NIQB 46 (22 June 2012)

The court held that the Defendants failed to raise a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence to the Plaintiffs' claims under the guarantees. The evidence did not support the Defendants' assertions of misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or mistake sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The guarantees were enforceable as written, and the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment.

Citation
[2012] NIQB 46
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Ulster Bank Ireland Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Ulster Bank Limited as Security Trustee for the Finance Parties; Defendant/appellant: Michael Adrian Taggart; Defendant/appellant: John Desmond Taggart
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Banking/contract/guarantee Enforcement / Appeal From Summary Judgment (order 14)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for Plaintiffs affirmed.
Legal Topics
Personal Guarantees, Summary Judgment, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Unilateral Mistake, Enforcement of Security, Affidavit Evidence
Banking Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Personal Guarantees Summary Judgment Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Unilateral Mistake +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ulster Bank Ireland Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Ulster Bank Limited as Security Trustee for the Finance Parties

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Adrian Taggart

Defendant/appellant

John Desmond Taggart

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Banking/contract/guarantee Enforcement / Appeal From Summary Judgment (order 14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants have a fair or reasonable probability of establishing a real or bona fide defence to the Plaintiffs' claims under two guarantees.
  2. 2 Whether the guarantees were vitiated by misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or unilateral mistake.
  3. 3 Whether the guarantees were intended to be temporary or limited in scope.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Defendants failed to raise a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence to the Plaintiffs' claims under the guarantees. The evidence did not support the Defendants' assertions of misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or mistake sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The guarantees were enforceable as written, and the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for Plaintiffs affirmed.

Orders

  • Defendants' appeals dismissed.
  • Summary judgment for Plaintiffs in the amounts of £5 million and €4.3 million affirmed.