The High Court has given Allied Irish Banks plc liberty to enter final judgment against two borrowers over loans totalling €2,527,628, and judgment against a third defendant who guaranteed the lending.
The ruling followed a motion for liberty to enter final judgment. The borrowers and guarantor argued that they had bona fide defences and that the case should proceed to a plenary hearing. The court considered affidavit evidence and submissions; it did not conduct a plenary trial.
The loans funded the purchase and development of a commercial site at Waterford Airport Business Park. The original facility was €5.3 million, including €1.3 million for acquiring the site and a further €4 million for development costs. The bank’s evidence said the borrowers later reduced the project’s scale and agreed an initial development of about 17,000 square feet, but there was no revised sanction letter recording that arrangement.
The borrowers’ principal argument was that the bank had verbally agreed to reduce the funding and extend the time for repayment while the project was built in phases. The judge accepted that the amount to be drawn had been varied, but noted that there was no concluded agreement on an extension period. She held that even if the repayment period had been extended, the loan terms allowed the bank to demand repayment following an event of default. The guarantor’s refusal to provide a new guarantee was such an event under the general terms and conditions, the court found.
The borrowers also alleged that delays in releasing certified payments to their builder hindered completion. The judge rejected that claim, finding the funds had been provided within days of the relevant certificates reaching the bank. She also addressed a disputed €127,000 drawdown: the evidence established that the sum had not been paid.
The third defendant disputed recalling the date he signed the guarantee, but did not deny that the signature was his. The judge found no evidence that uncertainty about the execution date could provide a defence. She also rejected his arguments concerning the security and the effect of variations to the lending, noting that the guarantee allowed the bank to vary or enlarge credit without his consent.
The court therefore granted liberty to enter final judgment against the first and second defendants and judgment against the third defendant. The decision resolved the summary judgment application; the judgment does not state the amount of any final judgment entered.