The High Court granted National Asset Loan Management Limited (NALM) summary judgment for the principal sums lent to Tom Coyle under a 2010 facility, but left the amount of interest to be resolved at a plenary hearing if the parties could not reach agreement.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern delivered the judgment on 19 December 2013. NALM had sought €51,818,991.51 and £10,567,723, figures that included interest calculated to 12 December 2013. The facility, issued by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Ltd. and accepted by Coyle on 5 August 2010, renewed earlier facilities and funded commercial investment ventures in Ireland and the UK. It was repayable on demand and had a stated repayment date of 31 December 2010.
NALM said it acquired the facility in November 2010 and demanded payment in a letter dated 30 January 2013. Coyle had not paid. The court recorded that he did not deny receiving the money or that it was repayable.
Coyle raised four points against summary judgment. He claimed Anglo had told him the facility would not be called in while he cooperated and that he would be given time to refinance. The judge held that the alleged assurance was too vague to amount to a binding representation, and said it conflicted with the written facility and a later agreement. The court also noted that Coyle had not raised the estoppel argument when he was classified as a non-cooperating borrower.
Coyle also challenged the consolidation of loan accounts, alleging it was unauthorised. The judge accepted evidence that the reorganisation was a bookkeeping exercise that did not change the debt or loan terms, and found no arguable defence on that point. A further defence alleged a conflict of interest in connection with a €10 million 2009 loan for 54 suites at the Clarion Hotel in Sligo. The judge found no evidence of coercion or an arguable defence, noting that the 2009 agreement was later replaced by the 2010 facility.
The remaining dispute concerned interest. Coyle relied on an accountant’s affidavit alleging overcharging; NALM disputed that claim. The judge found a conflict in the affidavit evidence that could not be resolved on a summary application, and directed that the appropriate interest be determined at a plenary hearing if no agreement was reached. The judgment therefore granted summary judgment for the principal sums and did not decide the amount of interest payable.