The High Court granted Bank of Ireland summary judgment against Balford Construction Ltd and its directors Peter and Nancy McNicholas, finding that none had raised an arguable defence to the bank’s claims.
In a judgment delivered on 2 June 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ordered Balford to pay €2,661,194. He also ordered the McNicholases to pay €1,082,501 jointly and severally under guarantees, and Peter McNicholas alone to pay a further €250,000 under a separate guarantee.
The applications in the two proceedings were heard together on 10 May. The bank’s claim against the company arose from loan facilities issued in 2009 and 2010. The bank said €2,661,194 remained due as of 29 April 2022, comprising €60,048 on the 2009 facility and €2,601,146 on the 2010 facility.
The company argued that the later facilities lacked consideration because the bank had not advanced the full amount available under an earlier 2008 facility. The judge rejected that argument, noting that the company entered the later facilities and received further advances under them.
The bank also obtained permission to amend the claims’ special endorsements to refer expressly to detailed account statements. The judge found the defendants had received sufficient information about how the amounts were calculated, including credits from the sale of secured property.
Peter McNicholas challenged the receiver’s appointment and argued that the secured property had been sold at an undervalue. The bank accepted that it sold the property as mortgagee. The judge found no arguable defence on those points, noting that the €1,026,000 sale price was consistent with an independent valuation of €1,020,000 that accounted for the property being landlocked. He also rejected arguments that the bank’s winding-up petition against the company was an actionable abuse of process.
Peter McNicholas alleged that he had signed Nancy McNicholas’s name on some guarantees without her authority. The judge found the allegation unsupported by sufficient evidence. Nancy McNicholas had not sworn an affidavit disputing the signatures or setting out which guarantees she said she had not signed or authorised.
The court’s decision was on the bank’s applications for summary judgment. It granted the three monetary judgments listed above.