Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> ACC Bank Plc -v- Heffernan & anor [2013] IEHC 557 (04 November 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H557.html
Cite as: [2013] IEHC 557
[New search] [Help]
Judgment
| ||||||||||||||||
Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 557 THE HIGH COURT [2011 No. 2085 S] BETWEEN ACC BANK PLC PLAINTIFF AND
THOMAS HEFFERNAN AND MARY HEFFERNAN DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hogan delivered on 4th November, 2013 1. Where a plaintiff commences proceedings by summary summons seeking a liquidated debt and thereafter applies to the Master of the High Court for summary judgment and it is concluded that the proceedings ought instead to have been commenced by plenary summons, is the Master nonetheless entitled to strike out the summary summons proceedings and require the plaintiff to recommence by way of plenary action? This, in essence is the issue which is presented in this appeal pursuant to O. 63, r. 9 from a decision of the Master to this effect. 2. The present proceedings were commenced by summary summons on 18th May, 2011. The plaintiff, ACC Bank, contends that it advanced the sum of €3,360,000 to the defendants, Mr. and Ms. Heffernan, in September 2007 following the acceptance of a loan offer by them. In February 2011 the plaintiff demanded repayment of the principal and interest in the sum of €4,152,755 which it contended was due under the loan agreement. Appearances were entered by the two defendants a few weeks thereafter and on 28th June, 2011, the plaintiff issued a motion for liberty to enter final judgment in the sum of €4,244,749 (including further interest). The defendants filed three replying affidavit by way of defence. 3. This matter was then listed before the Master of the High Court on 12th July, 2012. On that occasion counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as this was a contested matter, the case should be transferred into the High Court in accordance with O. 37, r. 6. The defendants' solicitor submitted that as the plaintiff was aware at the proceedings had been commenced that the defendants had a substantive defence to the proceedings, the proceedings ought to be struck ought. In a reserved decision delivered on 18th October 2012 the Master acceded to this latter application and struck out the proceedings on this ground, adding that the plaintiff could always start again by way of plenary summons. The plaintiff bank now appeals to this Court against that decision. The provisions of Order 37, rr. 4 and 6 5. Order 37 next distinguishes between the powers of the Master in uncontested cases on the one hand and those which obtain in contested cases on the other. Order 37, r. 4 deals with the power of the Master in uncontested cases:
7. Order 37, r. 6 deals, however, with contested cases and this rule provides:
9. While it may seem curious that the provisions of O. 37, r. 4 and O. 37, r. 6 (and their pre-1986 predecessors) have heretofore received comparatively little judicial scrutiny, there can nonetheless be little enough doubt regarding the meaning and effect of these provisions. In Grace v. Molloy [1927] IR 405 the plaintiff issued a summary summons claiming a fixed sum by way of arrears of rent. The defendant filed a replying affidavit claiming that he had an arrangement with the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff was to continue to pay rent to the head landlord under the lease and to remain as tenant under that lease and that it was only on the plaintiff making such payments that the defendant was obliged to recoup him in respect of the same amount. The defendant stated that the plaintiff had not paid the rent due to the head landlord and claimed that until such payments were made in the first instance he was not liable. The Master made an order for final judgment on the ground that the defendant's affidavit did not disclose the fact entitling him to defend. 10. The defendant's appeal against that decision of the Master succeeded before this Court. As O'Byrne J. observed ([1927] IR 405, 405) Order XIII, r. 5 of the Ru1es of the High Court and Supreme Court 1926 gave the Master power to make certain orders, including an order for final judgment in uncontested cases. It was, however, otherwise in the case of a contested case. On this point O'Byrne J. stated:
12. But where - as here - the defendants oppose the application for liberty to enter final judgment under O. 37, r. 1 by the filing of affidavits disputing the plaintiffs claim, then the case falls into the category of a contested case. In those circumstances, as the comments of O'Byme J. in Grace make clear, the Master's task-is simply either to transfer the case into the High Court for adjudication once satisfied that the papers are in order and the matter is ready for determination or, should the parties so consent, adjourn the case for plenary hearing. Specifically, the Master has no function to resolve a conflict of fact or to make an assessment of the likely strength of the case made by either the plaintiff or the defendant or to determine that the case ought to have been commenced by Plenary summons. Conclusions 14. The case can now accordingly proceed to a consideration of the separate question Of whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. |