Defence of promissory estoppel not sufficient to resist credit union’s claim for summary judgment

By: Shane Kiely BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court grants an order for summary judgment in favour of a credit union in the sum of over €212,000, on the grounds that defences of promissory estoppel and the rule in Pinnel's case were not sufficient to merit sending the matter to plenary hearing.

Claim for summary judgment - In July 2008 the first and second named defendants executed a credit agreement for just over €212,000 - plaintiff is seeking summary judgment in that amount - by way of defence, the first and second named defendant point to a revised repayment structure that was settled between them and the credit union in June 2012 whereby they were to continue paying annual instalments of a lesser amount than the total annual amount required to be paid by them under the terms of the agreement - rule in Pinnel's case - the plaintiff never agreed to take a lesser sum in satisfaction of the larger debt; all that was agreed was that lesser monthly repayments would be accepted for a time; the totality of the debt continued, and continues, to be acknowledged - rejection of promissory estoppel defence - principles that are applicable when a court approaches the issue of whether to grant summary judgment or leave to defend - summary judgment granted as defendants have no defence.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *