Bank of Ireland was discourteous and imprudent by failing to tell the Supreme Court that it had sold a €200,000 loan at the centre of an appeal, according to Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Brian Murray of Killybegs, Co Donegal, that he repay €132,355 to Bank of Ireland against a €200,000 loan secured on their home given to his wife Attracta Murray.
However, Bank of Ireland was “both discourteous and imprudent” not to tell the State’s highest court that it had agreed to sell the Murrays’ loan to Pepper Finance two days before a hearing relating to the appeal on December 5th, 2024, O’Donnell’s ruling states.
The bank was discourteous as it failed to tell the court of a deal affecting the loan and which could have affected the appeal, the Chief Justice said.
Bank of Ireland ought to have anticipated that the court would want to be told of the transaction, and to have ensured that Murray was informed, so he could make any submissions that he considered appropriate, his ruling added.
The lender was imprudent as it could have avoided extra “elaborate” proceedings had it told the Supreme Court of the sale, O’Donnell noted, saying it might be reasonable for the costs to reflect this.
Could we be heading toward a world recession if Trump can’t broker a deal with Iran?
However, he disagreed with Murray’s claim that Bank of Ireland was reckless and guilty of abuse of process. The lender did not comment on Wednesday.
Details of the bank’s sale of the loan to Pepper emerged only last year after the Supreme Court had heard Murray’s appeal and upheld lower courts’ findings that he had to repay €132,355 of the original loan amount.
Murray’s lawyers asked the court to set aside the judgment for a rehearing of some aspects of the case.
The bank’s failure to disclose the sale prevented Murray from arguing that its transfer eliminated its loss and so prevented the lender from bringing its claim against him, they said.
Murray is a full-time fisherman and spends long periods at sea. Attracta Murray borrowed €240,000 in total in 2003 and 2007, secured on the family home, without his knowledge.
Repayments stopped in 2012 and the bank began proceedings to recover its debt the following year.
It emerged that Brian Murray never signed any loan agreements or other documents required by consumer credit law, although his signature appeared on those materials.
The courts accepted Murray’s case that he did not sign any documents relating to the mortgage and that he had no contract with Bank of Ireland as a result.
However, the High Court and Court of Appeal found that as he had benefited from the money, the bank was entitled to recover €132,355 from him for “unjust enrichment”.
As both husband and wife are liable for the debt, together and individually, the bank also obtained judgment against Attracta Murray for €202,000.
Once Pepper took over the loan, giving it the right to seek its repayment, Murray argued that the bank’s claim for “unjust enrichment” was no longer valid.
However, O’Donnell maintained that irrespective of this, the fact remained that Murray still benefited from money transferred to the couple’s joint account.
He also said it was not possible for Bank of Ireland and Pepper to obtain the full amounts of both judgments against the couple. Credit would have to be given to either Brian or Attracta Murray for any money paid by the other, he added.