The High Court has granted National Asset Loan Management DAC judgment for €776,727 against Thomas Anderson, after refusing his application to have the lender’s claim heard at a plenary hearing.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the judgment on 9 February 2018. The lender sought the sum as the balance due under a guarantee relating to loans made by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation plc to the Aikens Partnership. The lender had acquired the bank’s rights and obligations under the facility letters.
The 2007 facility letter provided three loan facilities. Anderson later signed a guarantee and indemnity capped at €1.5 million. A 2008 facility letter extended the repayment date for facilities A and B. It said it replaced, rather than added to, earlier facility letters, and provided for a further personal guarantee. Anderson did not sign that further guarantee, although a “Guarantor’s Acceptance” attached to the 2008 letter was signed on his behalf by Michael Ormonde under a power of attorney.
Anderson argued that his 2007 guarantee applied only to liabilities under the 2007 facility letter, which he said the 2008 letter replaced. He also disputed Ormonde’s authority to sign the acceptance. The lender argued that the loans were the same facilities, no additional money had been advanced, and the guarantee covered extensions and variations. It also said Anderson had assented to the rescheduling.
The judge found the 2008 letter did not replace the original loan: it extended the repayment time for facilities A and B, which remained outstanding, and no additional money had been advanced. He held that provisions of the guarantee covering continuing liabilities and changes to facilities applied. The court also found Anderson had agreed or assented to the changed loan terms and was therefore not discharged from the guarantee.
The judge said it was not necessary to decide the authority issue to determine the application. He nevertheless rejected Anderson’s argument, finding the partnership agreement authorised Ormonde to sign documents connected with the partnership’s business, including the 2008 letter and its attached acceptance.
Applying the test for summary judgment, the court concluded Anderson had not established a basis to send the action to a plenary hearing. It refused remittal and entered judgment for the amount sought. The judgment does not state a separate order on costs.