The High Court has refused Stapleford Finance DAC’s request for liberty to enter final judgment against Colum Butler for €1,048,713.49, directing instead that the claim against him be remitted to a plenary hearing.
Mr Justice MacGrath said the proposed defences raised substantial issues of fact and law that should not be disposed of on a summary application. He did not decide whether any defence would ultimately succeed.
Stapleford sought judgment on the basis of a personal guarantee relating to two €630,000 facilities offered in 2007 to Bernard McEvoy and his firm, McEvoy Partners, to help fund and fit out premises at Connaught House, Burlington Road, Dublin. The judgment records that Butler signed a guarantee on 1 August 2008, while the facility letter and pleadings referred to a guarantee dated 1 August 2007. The court noted that discrepancy.
The lender said it had acquired the loans and related rights from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation. Butler disputed, among other matters, whether the guarantee rights had been transferred, whether the guarantee was supported by consideration, whether the claim was out of time, and whether loan conditions and security requirements had been met. He also argued that an agreement under which McEvoy consented to judgment affected the claim against him.
Stapleford opposed those arguments, submitting that the guarantee terms and borrower payments answered several of them, and that the agreement with McEvoy did not compromise the debt. The court’s role on the motion was to decide whether Butler had shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real defence, not whether his account was more likely to be true.
Mr Justice MacGrath said the arguments were “at least arguable” and were not mere assertions. As one example, he noted that the evidence before him showed funds had apparently been drawn down before Butler signed the guarantee, while there was no prima facie evidence of the lender agreeing to forbear from calling in the debt. He expressed no view on whether that or the other proposed grounds would succeed after a full hearing.
The court declined the lender’s invitation to identify particular concerns for further affidavits. It refused the motion for final judgment and directed that the matter proceed to a plenary hearing.