The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against Joanna Sloan, finding she had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 12 March 2019. The source does not state the amount of the judgment.
The bank’s application concerned a written loan agreement dated 28 June 2007. It provided for two facilities totalling €3.422 million, secured by mortgages over two office units in the Apex Centre, Sandyford, and a guarantee from Simon Kelly. The judgment records that Sloan drew down the funds, executed mortgages over both units and did not meet repayment demands. The units were later sold by a receiver, with the proceeds credited for her benefit.
Sloan argued that the agreement in the bank’s first affidavit was unsigned by her. The bank later produced a copy bearing a signature it said was hers; she denied signing it. The judge treated that denial as a bare assertion. He also found her claim that she knew nothing about the loan was inconsistent with a later affidavit referring to liabilities she had executed and with her admitted execution of the mortgages. The judgment notes that her home address was where repayment demands were sent and that she had not raised the signature or knowledge claims earlier.
The court also rejected Sloan’s argument that the absence of independent legal advice was a defence. On limitation, the bank relied on the 12-year period in section 36(1)(a) of the Statute of Limitations 1957 for money secured by a mortgage or charge. Following the reasoning in an earlier High Court case, the judge held that the 12-year period applied and the claim was not statute-barred.
Sloan further argued that she should benefit from a compromise concerning an earlier €8 million loan to other parties for the Apex Centre purchase. The judge found she was not party to that original borrowing and was not shown to be a concurrent wrongdoer with those who settled it. He rejected the suggestion that loan statements showed a larger facility, treating an “11.863m” heading as a typographical error in light of the other documents.
The court ordered judgment for the amount claimed, but the amount is not specified in the judgment text provided.