Bank of Ireland’s failure to tell the Supreme Court that it had agreed to sell a mortgage at the centre of a controversial case ahead of an appeal was “bizarre”, a leading judge declared on Wednesday.
The bank pledged to sell a mortgage due from Brian and Attracta Murray of Killybegs, Co Donegal, to vulture fund Pepper Finance last December, before the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Mr Murray on a €132,000 judgment against him relating to the debt.
Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne declared that the Supreme Court was “not happy, to put it mildly” and dubbed it “bizarre” that the bank had not told the court of the loan’s sale to Pepper Finance, during a hearing on Wednesday.
“Everything we have seen from the bank to date has been unsatisfactory,” she said.
RM Block
The judge, one of the most senior in the State, remarked that Bank of Ireland had failed to put before the court all the information that should have been before the court.
Mr Murray, represented by Gary McCarthy SC, Patrick F O’Reilly SC and David O’Brien, wants the judgment for €132,355 against him set aside as the bank failed to disclose all relevant facts to the court.
Details of the loan sale to Pepper Finance did not emerge until after three of five Supreme Court judges rejected Mr Murray’s challenge to the original judgment against him in June.
Bank of Ireland agreed the sale to Pepper Finance on December 4th, 2024, and the Supreme Court heard the case the following day.
The bank completed the sale to Pepper Finance in April, two months before the court ruled.
Ms Justice Dunne noted that nobody had told the Supreme Court of the deal at any point.
The bank did not comment. It has told the court that a separate unit to that which dealt with the case against the Murrays was responsible for the sale.
Bank of Ireland claimed that the Murrays borrowed €240,000 in loans secured against their home in 2003 and 2007, with one of the loans used to pay for an investment property.
The bank received repayments until June 2012. In April 2013, it began proceedings seeking repayment of the €200,000 still owed plus interest.
Mr Murray, a fisherman who spends long periods at sea, said that 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.
However, while the High Court found that this was true, it ruled that 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 court also found against his argument that the 2007 loan was void as the bank failed to comply with the Consumer Credit Act, 1995, as Mr Murray did not have a contract with the lender.
He challenged these findings in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
