Brian Murray, a 64-year old fisherman from Co Donegal, is set to make a case in the Supreme Court stating he shouldn’t be held equally responsible for repaying €194,000 in loans that he alleges were fraudulently obtained by his wife using his forged signature whilst he was at sea. Mr. Murray’s legal battle against Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank and his wife, Attracta Murray, 63, has spanned 11 years as he fights to avoid repaying loans amounting to €240,000.
The High Court, while failing to confirm Mr Murray’s signature on the 2003 and 2007 loan agreements, maintained the bank was justified in retrieval of the principal sum from him, reasoning that he indirectly profited from the funds. Attracta Murray, who was absent from the court hearing, was made responsible for not only the principal sum but also the accrued interest. The court remained indecisive on the question of whether she forged her husband’s signature.
The verdict of the High Court was centred on the principle of “unjust enrichment”, stating the regulations of the 1995 Consumer Credit Act were not applicable due to the absence of a contract between Mr Murray and the bank. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, and dismissed Mr Murray’s contention that it was unjust to hold him liable for finances he profited from.
The Supreme Court, in its latest statement, noted that Mr Murray’s appeal for a further hearing brought forth issues of “significant public importance”. Mr Murray aims to argue that the High Court’s and the Court of Appeal’s previous rulings leave room for a “dangerously expansive” application of restitutionary relief. Additionally, he seeks for the court to consider whether a regulated lender’s own “unconscionable” actions can impact its claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.
He cites evidence from the 2007 bank branch manager who acknowledged that it was a common local process to allow joint mortgage applications to be sanctioned based on instructions from one party only.
The Supreme Court has been requested by the bank to reject Mr Murray’s appeal, highlighting that there has been no proven misconduct or unethical behaviour in relation to their actions. The court’s three judge panel will consider whether permitting the bank to seek an unjust enrichment claim against Mr Murray would contradict public policy and also ascertain whether providing Mr Murray with credit without him first signing a credit agreement would be in violation of the Consumer Credit Act.
Mr Murray, a Killybegs-based fisherman, claimed to the High Court that he entrusted the handling of his finances to his wife, due to spending extended time out at sea. He provided skipper logbooks as evidence that he wasn’t present when the pertinent loan documents were signed.
His statement also included that while he allowed his wife to secure a €40,000 loan in 2003 – to partially finance an apartment purchase in Spain – he did not approve leveraging their family home near Killybegs.
He contested knowledge of an ensuing €200,000 loan in 2007, allegedly intended for the construction of an investment property. This loan was instead utilized for an array of miscellaneous purposes, including settling the earlier loan. Mr Murray claims that his agreement with his wife was to borrow only €30,000 at that juncture to repurchase a plot of land from their daughter.
The High Court found that he only became aware of the larger sum in June 2011, when his application for a small loan to purchase a quad bike was denied.