The Supreme Court dismissed Patrick and Roseann McLaughlin’s appeal against a High Court order concerning unpaid loans and the appointment of a receiver over properties connected to the loans.
The High Court had declared the receiver validly appointed and ordered the McLaughlins to pay Bank of Scotland plc (BOS) €4,064,138.01. The Supreme Court appeal was heard by Clarke, Laffoy and Dunne JJ. Clarke J delivered the judgment on 19 March 2015. The appeal was dismissed; the judgment records that Laffoy J separately addressed the registration issue and that Clarke J agreed with her judgment on it.
The McLaughlins argued that the bank could not call in the loans until their Foxrock residence, known as “Latona”, was sold, and that any shortfall after a sale could not be recovered from them. Clarke J said the point had not been properly advanced at trial and could be treated as abandoned. He nevertheless considered its substance and concluded that the facility letters set fixed loan periods and did not require the bank to wait indefinitely for Latona to sell. The evidence did not establish a sufficiently clear, legally binding agreement to change those written terms or make the loans non-recourse.
The Court also rejected the argument that security over the properties had not transferred from Bank of Scotland Ireland Limited (BOSI) to BOS in a cross-border merger. The merger took effect at 23:59 on 31 December 2010, after court orders approving it. Clarke J held that the security was an asset transferred to BOS under the applicable merger rules. The Court declined to refer questions about the meaning of “assets” to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The McLaughlins also challenged the registration of BOS as owner of some charges over registered land. Clarke J agreed with Laffoy J’s judgment on that issue but did not set out her reasoning in his judgment. He rejected the remaining written appeal points, including challenges to the authority and method of the receiver’s appointment and to the loan demand notice. The Supreme Court therefore left the High Court orders in place.