Allied Irish Banks Plc v Pierce

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Gerard Hogan
Judgment Date22 April 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] IECA 87
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Date22 April 2015
Allied Irish Banks PLC v Pierce
BETWEEN/
ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AND

EILEEN PIERCE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2015] IECA 87

Kelly J.

Hogan J.

Mahon J.

Appeal No. 72/2015

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Rules of the Superior Courts – Liquated Sum – Practice and Procedures – Defective Summons – Bank Loan – Arrears – Evidence – Claim – Interest

Facts: In this case the key issue addressed by the Court was: Where a plaintiff elected to sue for a liquidated sum by means of a summary summons, how extensive must the particulars of debt be in order to satisfy the requirements of Ord. 4, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986? The plaintiff bank had advanced various sums by way of loan to the defendant, Ms. Pierce, from 2007. Further facilities were granted in April 2008 and were again re-structured in June 2009. The facility fell into arrears and by letter dated 23rd April 2013 the plaintiff”s solicitors demanded repayment of the principal sum. Proceedings were commenced by way of summary summons shortly thereafter. The affidavits filed on behalf of the Bank gave further details of the account and accrued interest. One of the documents exhibited was an open letter from the defendant”s financial adviser to AIB. That letter did not seriously dispute the debt and gave details of settlement proposals which had been advanced on her behalf. The matter came before the Master on a number of occasions, but on 16th October 2014 he struck out the summons pursuant to Ord. 63, r. 5 on the ground that the summons was defective for want of failure to disclose adequate particulars regarding interest. AIB appealed that decision to the High Court. In his decision 14th November 2014 Binchy J. upheld the decision of the Master to strike out the summons on the ground that the claim for interest had not been sufficiently particularised. AIB then appealed to the Court against that decision.

Held by Justice Hogan in light of the available evidence and submissions presented that he would allow the appeal on the basis that the plaintiff bank had supplied adequate particulars for the purposes of Ord. 4, r. 4. Specifically, as there was no suggestion at all that the defendant did not know the nature of the case which she had to meet, it could not be said that the particulars were inadequate in any way. The Court also reasoned that this case was by definition a contested case within the meaning of Ord. 37, r.6, and that the Master had no jurisdiction to strike out the summary summons on the basis that the summons was defective. In those circumstances, Justice Hogan allowed the appeal and remitted the matter afresh to the High Court to enable that Court to proceed to hear the merits of the present application which had yet to be determined.

1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan delivered on 22nd day of April 2015

2

1. Where a plaintiff elects to sue for a liquidated sum by means of a summary summons, how extensive must the particulars of debt be in order to satisfy the requirements of Ord. 4, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986? This is essentially the issue posed in this appeal and it arises in the following way.

3

2. The plaintiff bank, Allied Irish Banks plc ("AIB") advanced various sums by way of loan to the defendant, Ms. Pierce, from 2007. Further facilities were granted in April 2008 and were again re-structured in June 2009. The facility fell into arrears and by letter dated 23 rd April 2013 the plaintiff's solicitors demanded repayment of the principal sum. These proceedings were commenced by way of summary summons shortly thereafter.

4

3. The affidavits filed on behalf of the Bank give further details of the account and accrued interest. One of the documents therein exhibited was an open letter from the defendant's financial adviser to AIB. It is, perhaps, striking that this letter did not seriously dispute the debt and gave details of settlement proposals which had been advanced on her behalf.

5

4. The matter came before the Master on a number of occasions, but on 16 th October 2014 he struck out the summons pursuant to Ord. 63, r. 5 on the ground that the summons was defective for want of failure to disclose adequate particulars regarding interest. AIB appealed that decision to the High Court. In his decision 14 th November 2014 Binchy J. upheld the decision of the Master to strike out the summons on the ground that the claim for interest had not been sufficiently particularised. AIB now appeals to this Court against that decision.

6

5. The indorsement of claim contained in the summary summons was in the following terms:

"The plaintiff's claim is for €785,928.24 against the defendant together with continuing interest at current bank rates being monies due by the defendant to the plaintiffs for monies leant by the plaintiffs to the defendant forborne at interest by the plaintiffs from the defendant and paid by the plaintiffs as bankers for the defendant at her request within the last six years."

7

Particulars:

8

Loan Account Number [details supplied]

9

23 rd April 2013: - amount formally demanded: (total): €785,928.24"

10

6. It is agreed that the particulars supplied in the indorsement of claim followed the standard practice which has been used by the plaintiff bank without objection for more than fifty years. The point taken by the defendant's counsel, Mr. Sheahan S.C., is that while this may be so, this summons nonetheless fails ex facie to comply with the requirements of Ord. 4, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 and that he is entitled on that ground alone to object to the proceedings in their present form.

11

7. I should pause here to observe that it is agreed that in the event that this appeal were to succeed, the matter must then be remitted to the High Court, as the defendant elected to raise the pleading point as a preliminary objection and she has yet to file an affidavit showing a defence on the merits.

The requirements of Ord. 4 and particulars on the indorsement of claim
12

8. Ord. 4, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provide:

"The indorsement of claim on a summary summons and on a special summons shall be entitled 'special endorsement of claim' and shall state specifically and with all necessary particulars the relief claimed on the grounds thereof. The indorsement of claim on a summary summons or a special summons shall be in such one of the forms in Appendix B, Part III shall be applicable to the case, or, if none be found applicable, then such other similarly concise form as the nature of the case may require."

13

9. Looking at the matter first in terms of general principles, the whole object of pleadings and, specifically, the requirements contained in the Rules of the Superior Courts regarding to particulars was articulated by Henchy J. in Cooney v. Browne [1984] I.R. 185, 191 in the following terms:

"…where the pleading in question is so general or so imprecise that the other side cannot know what case he will have to meet at the trial, he should be entitled to such particulars as will inform him of the range of evidence (as distinct from any particular items of evidence) which he will have to deal with at the trial."

14

10. The Rules of the Superior Courts admittedly contain a variety of distinct provisions dealing with the obligation to provide particulars. While the obligation to supply particulars may vary depending on the context, these provisions all, however, share one common objective, namely, to ensure that litigants properly know the case that they have to meet. The obligation to supply particulars is, accordingly, not an end in itself.

15

11. This general principle is also reflected in the case-law regarding particulars in summary summons proceedings. It is true that the procedure provided for by Ord. 4, r.4 is attenuated. This, however, reflects the limited purpose of the summary summons procedure, namely, to provide for a speedy mechanism whereby a plaintiff creditor can recover a liquidated sum from a defaulting debtor. But as to the guiding principle to be applied, there can, I think, be very little doubt.

16

12. The defendant is accordingly entitled to sufficient particulars as will enable him to determine himself whether he is obliged to pay the sum claimed. The principle was stated by Cockburn C.J. in Walker v. Hicks (1877) 3 Q.B.D. 8, 9:-

"I think a party, who is placed in the predicament of being liable to have a judgment signed against him summarily, is entitled to have sufficient particulars to enable him to satisfy his mind whether he ought to pay or resist… It seems to me that a party is entitled, before summary proceedings for judgment are taken against him, to know specifically what is the claim against him."

17

13. Mellor J. spoke to the same effect [ (1877) 3 Q.B.D. 8,9-10]:

"It seems to me very important to prevent any loose dealing with regard to the form of special endorsements. A very summary remedy is given to the plaintiff where there has been such an endorsement. But before the plaintiff can ask for final judgment the defendant ought to have afforded him, by the endorsement of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Allied Irish Banks Plc v Pierce
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 21 May 2015
  • Allied Irish Banks Plc v Cullinane
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 22 April 2015
    ... ... The judge who heard the appellant”s application also delivered judgement in Allied Irish Banks plc v. Pierce on the same day. The appellant”s claim was the same as that which was in issue in Allied Irish Banks plc v. Pierce. In both instances the court had to determine whether the special endorsement of claim on the summary summons was defective. Held by Kelly J: The court held that ... ...
  • Allied Irish Bank v O'Callaghan
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 19 November 2020
    ...in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O ‘Mailer [2019] IESC 84, and the earlier decision of this court in Allied Irish Bank v. Pierce [2015] IECA 87, regarding particularisation of the claim in the 60 In O'Malley Clarke CJ was critical of the level of information in the Summary Summons and ......
  • The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland v Seamus White
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 June 2018
    ...the defendant's assertion that the summary summons is defective. Counsel relies on the decision of the Court of Appeal in AIB v. Pierce [2015] IECA 87. where Hogan J. opines: '15. In the present case the particulars supplied by AIB in the indorsement of claim refer to the sum outstanding, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT