A Co Donegal fisherman will argue in the Supreme Court that he should not be held jointly liable to repay €194,000 on foot of loans he says were secured by his wife forging his signature while he was away at sea.
Brian Murray (64) has been contesting Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank’s legal case against him and his wife, Attracta Murray (63), seeking repayment for loans totalling €240,000 for 11 years.
While the High Court was not satisfied Mr Murray had signed the 2003 and 2007 loan documents, it held that the bank was entitled to recover the principal amount against him as he had benefited from the money.
Ms Murray, who did not participate in the hearing, was held liable for the principal sum plus interest. The court did not express a concluded view on whether she forged her husband’s signature.
Roddy Doyle: ‘I feel quite good about living in Ireland. But I think we were probably a bit smug’
‘Your voice will be heard’: Over 160 contacts made to gardaí regarding schools abuse inquiry
‘An amazing feeling’: Sixteen-year-old wins women’s Liffey Swim
Declan Rice and Jack Grealish brush off boos to be England’s two best players against Ireland
The High Court decision focused on the legal principle of “unjust enrichment” and held that requirements of the 1995 Consumer Credit Act did not apply because there was no contractual arrangement between Mr Murray and the bank.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling and in so doing rejected Mr Murray’s argument that it was unfair to hold him accountable for borrowings he benefited from.
In a recent determination, the Supreme Court said issues of “significant public importance” have been raised in Mr Murray’s application for a further appeal.
Mr Murray will argue, among other points, that the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal leave the door open for a “dangerously expansive” application of restitutionary relief. He also wants the court to address whether a regulated lender’s own “unconscionable” behaviour can affect its claim for restitution for unjust enrichment.
On this, he points to evidence from the 2007 bank branch manager who admitted it was a common local practice to allow joint mortgage applications to be processed on the instructions of one party only.
The bank asked the Supreme Court to refuse to hear Mr Murray’s appeal and noted there have been no findings of misbehaviour or unconscionable conduct on its part.
A three-judge panel of the court said it is important the court clarifies whether it would offend public policy to permit the bank to pursue a claim in unjust enrichment against Mr Murray. The court will also consider whether the bank’s purported provision of credit to Mr Murray, without first ensuring he had executed a credit agreement, amounted to a breach of the Consumer Credit Act.
Mr Murray, who fishes out of Killybegs, told the High Court he had entrusted the management of financial affairs to his wife as he was away at sea for long periods. He submitted skipper logbooks to support his claim that he was at sea when all of the relevant loan documents were signed.
He claimed he left it to her to do whatever was necessary to borrow €40,000 in 2003 – to half fund the purchase of an apartment in Spain – except he did not authorise creating any charge over their family home near Killybegs.
He denied knowing about a further advancement of €200,000 in 2007, the purpose of which was said to be for building an investment property, but was used for various miscellaneous purposes, including to discharge the earlier loan. He claimed he agreed with his wife to borrow only €30,000 at that point to buy back a site from their daughter.
The High Court was satisfied that he only became aware of the larger sum in June 2011 when he was refused a small loan to buy a quad bike.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
