Quinn’s wife ordered to repay €3m bank loan

THE wife of bankrupt businessman Sean Quinn has been ordered to repay a €3 million bank loan.

A judge ruled she cannot avoid liability on grounds including that she never knew she had signed up for the loan, or being a homemaker unduly influenced by her husband, who signed documents he gave her without reading them.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the law since the 18th century allowed for no presumption of undue influence between a wife and husband. There was no evidence of undue influence, such as bullying behaviour, by Mr Quinn over his wife Patricia, nor was there evidence she was feeble minded or mentally ill.

The judge noted that the late High Court judge Ms Justice Mella Carroll “eloquently” stated 25 years ago that the day was long past when married women could be classified akin to infants and persons of unsound mind, and evade liability by arguing they were only concerned with minding their house and children.

Other claims by Ms Quinn of a defence on grounds she had neither read nor understood the loan documents nor got the benefit of the loan were also not arguable, he ruled.

Ms Quinn “gave no thought to what she was signing” and such negligence disentitled her to make a claim of not understanding what she signed.

“What could be more negligent than willy-nilly signing legal documents without any thought to their nature and effect?”

A cursory glance at these documents would have made clear “to all but the illiterate” they related to a borrowing transaction.

On foot of such findings, he ruled the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, was entitled to summary judgement for €3,059,951 plus costs against Ms Quinn and refused an application by her counsel Bill Shipsey SC for a stay on his order.

Any application for a stay (pending any appeal) would have to be made to the Supreme Court, he said.

IBRC sought the order against Ms Quinn, of Greaghrahan, Ballyconnell, Co Cavan, over an unpaid loan made to herself and Mr Quinn in 2006. Summary judgement was previously entered against Mr Quinn.

The bank claimed it was represented to it that the loan was to go towards final decorative costs for the Quinns’ home but the court heard that Mr Quinn had directed the money be paid into an account of Quinn Manufacturing Ltd.

Ms Quinn, through affidavits and her lawyers, argued this week she had a defence to the claim, entitling the matter to go to a full hearing in the Commercial Court.

IBRC insisted she did not and argued that, while she disputed the bank’s description of her as a “business lady”, she had been a director of 63 Quinn group companies in the Republic, 28 Quinn companies in Britain and secretary of about 10 companies.

Mr Justice Kelly said he would accept what Ms Quinn said in affidavits at face value, including having no business experience. Even accepting those claims, she had not made out an arguable defence, he ruled.