The High Court has granted Bank of Ireland summary judgment against Seamus White for a loan debt, while indicating that execution should be stayed on condition that he advances separate plenary proceedings with due diligence. The judge left the management of that condition for further submissions.
The bank sought judgment for money due under a 2012 facility. White argued that the bank had overcharged interest and that an alleged breach of an earlier loan agreement entitled him to damages and an equitable set-off. He also objected that the summary summons did not give sufficient particulars.
Justice Faherty rejected the pleading objection. She said the summons gave White enough information to know the case he had to meet, and he had not shown that the absence of further particulars compromised a fair defence.
The judge also rejected the interest argument. White relied on an expert report estimating that he had paid about €132,900 too much in interest. But the court found that the 2010 and 2012 agreements fixed the rate at 4.05% for five years, and that the expert’s assertions did not establish an arguable basis for sending that issue to a plenary hearing.
White’s other claim concerned the 2007 facility, which was intended in part to fund a new workshop in Clonakilty. He alleged the bank refused to release the final loan tranches, leaving the development unfinished and harming his business. The bank disputed his account, saying he had told it the remaining funds were unnecessary because the project was completed within budget.
The judge found that the 2012 agreement barred White from setting off a counterclaim against payments due to the bank. She described the 2007 claim as an independent claim, rather than one arising under the 2012 agreement. The court therefore granted summary judgment, recording the amount as €1,220,46.77 in the judgment.
However, the judge considered White’s explanations for increased repayments and the absence of further architect’s certificates arguable, and said the 2007 claim was sufficiently arguable for the court to consider a stay of execution. Taking account of the delay in pursuing that claim and other factors, she was minded to stay execution if White pursued his plenary proceedings diligently. The judgment concluded with a direction to hear submissions on how that condition should be managed.