Bank of Ireland was “reckless” when it failed to tell the Supreme Court that it had sold a debt due from a Co Donegal fisherman that was the subject of controversial litigation, lawyers argued on Thursday.
The bank pledged to sell a mortgage due from Brian and Attracta Murray of Killybegs, Co Donegal, to Pepper Finance in December 2024, before the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Murray on a €132,000 judgment against him relating to the debt.
Bank of Ireland “acted recklessly” and engaged in an “abuse of process” by not informing the Supreme Court of the loan sale, Murray’s lawyers argued.
The court found for the bank last year, upholding rulings from the lower courts, before details of the sale emerged.
READ MORE
However, Murray wants the judgment for €132,355 against him set aside and a rehearing of some aspects of the case, as the lender failed to disclose details of the loan sale, which happened while his appeal was ongoing.
The bank agreed the sale to Pepper Finance on December 4th, 2024. The court heard the case the following day.
The bank completed the sale to Pepper Finance in April 2025, two months before the court ruled in June.
The company maintains that a separate unit to that which took the case against the Murrays was responsible for the loan sale.
Is it time Ireland abolished mandatory retirement?
However, the bank had “sufficient information to be able to inform the court”, Patrick F O’Reilly, Murray’s lawyer, argued on Thursday.
The bank claimed that the Murrays borrowed €240,000 in loans secured against their home in 2003 and 2007.
It received repayments until June 2012. In April 2013, it began legal proceedings.
Murray spends long periods at sea and said his wife took out the two loans, for €40,000 in 2003 and €200,000 in 2007, without his knowledge.
He maintained that he never signed any documents giving their family home as security or confirming marital status, as required by consumer protection laws.
The High Court found that this was true but ruled he still benefited, as cash was placed in the couple’s joint account.
Consequently, he owed the bank €132,355 in restitution on the grounds of a legal principle called “unjust enrichment”.
The bank’s lawyer, Hugh O’Neill, maintained that the sale meant Pepper should get the restitution. He pointed out that the agreement to sell the loan included all ancillary rights and claims.
He maintained that informing the court of the loan ultimately made no difference to the judgment in the case.
The agreement with Pepper obliged the bank to remain as a party to the proceedings after the agreement in December until the sale’s completion, said O’Neill.
