Clones Credit Union Ltd v Strain
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 241 |
| Docket Number | 2015 No. 1865 S |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 04 May 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 241
THE HIGH COURT
Barrett J.
2015 No. 1865 S
AND
Banking & Finance – Practice & Procedure – Summary judgment – Monies due and owing – Non-payment of amount
Facts: In the present application, the plaintiff sought an order for summary judgment for the principal sum owing under the agreement plus the interest and certain ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff contended that the defence of the first and second named defendants that they had an agreement with the plaintiff for paying the annual instalments of a lesser amount than the total annual amount must fail because of the rule in Pinnel's case (1602) 5 Co. rep. 117a. The first and second named defendants contended that there was a standstill contract between the parties that prevented the plaintiff from commencing the present proceedings until the revised repayment amounts were paid.
Mr. Justice Max Barrett granted the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The Court held that the defendants had no case. The Court noted that the defendants had failed to disclose any arguable defence. The Court further noted that the total repayment amount was not met within one year, because the total amount required in that year was not paid after the revised repayment arrangement was settled. The Court referred to the doctrine in Healy v. Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd [2018] IEHC 12, in relation to the defence of promissory estoppel taken by the first and second named defendants.
The plaintiff credit union is a limited liability company having its registered office in Clones, County Monaghan. Messrs Strain and Lynch (the only defendants to whom the within judgment relates) are members of the credit union. By credit agreement duly executed by Messrs Strain and Lynch and dated 25th July, 2008, Messrs Strain and Lynch borrowed just in excess of €212k from the credit union. Following default under the terms of that agreement, the credit union now comes seeking summary judgment for the principal sum owing under the agreement plus interest and certain ancillary reliefs. By way of defence, Messrs Strain and Lynch point to a revised repayment structure that was settled between them and the credit union in June 2012 whereby they were to continue paying annual instalments of a lesser amount than the total annual amount required to be paid by them under the terms of the agreement. Messrs Strain and Lynch do not deny the total amount owed under the agreement; they merely point to the altered repayment structure, which they appear to consider was to apply until complete repayment was made of all amounts owing under the credit agreement. Messrs Strain and Lynch also claim to be perplexed by the commencement of the within proceedings when viewed in the context of that revised repayment structure, which they maintain has at all times been met. They want the within matter to be sent to plenary hearing.
The Rule in Pinnel's case. It is contended by the credit union that the defence of the first and second-named defendants must fail because of the rule in Pinnel's case (1602) 5 Co. rep. 117a. The court does not accept that this is so. The effect of the rule in Pinnel's case is that if a liquidated sum is owed by A to B, a promise by B to take a lesser sum in satisfaction of the larger debt will not bind B. Here, the credit union never agreed to take a lesser sum in satisfaction of the larger debt; all that was agreed was that lesser monthly repayments would be accepted for a time; the totality of the debt continued, and continues, to be acknowledged.
Standstill Contract. At the core of the contentions of Messrs Strain and Lynch is that a binding standstill contract has arisen between them and the credit union whereby the latter will not commence proceedings under the credit agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial