The High Court entered summary judgment against Eugene McCool for €228,005.36, plus continuing interest, in proceedings brought by ACC Loan Management Designated Activity Company over a loan facility. Ms Justice Reynolds ruled on 16 November 2017 that the evidence did not disclose a bona fide defence requiring a full trial.
The dispute concerned a €630,000 facility offered in May 2006 and drawn down in August that year. The judgment says it was intended to restructure existing borrowing and was secured by a mortgage and charge over properties at 49 and 51 Shanard Road, Santry, Dublin 9. Although initially set for two years, the term was extended by three variations to July 2010.
After repayments fell into default, the plaintiff demanded €872,722.98 in September 2013 and a receiver was appointed over the properties. A replacement receiver followed in December 2013. Rent collected from tenants and the proceeds of the properties’ sale were credited to McCool’s account. The plaintiff said €228,005.36, plus continuing interest, remained due, and that no payment had been made since July 2015.
McCool accepted that the borrowing had not been repaid in full but sought permission to defend the claim. He argued that the facility’s two-year term was an error and that he had intended a 20-year commercial loan. The judge found that the signed facility letter clearly stated a two-year term and that McCool had also signed three variation letters. He accepted that he had not read the documents or obtained legal advice. The court held that he had not shown an arguable defence on the loan term.
The defendant also challenged the calculation of the balance. The plaintiff had withdrawn its claim for surcharge interest and sought principal and standard interest only. The judge described McCool’s remaining objection to the calculation as a bare assertion, noting that detailed affidavit evidence had not been meaningfully answered and that he had not raised specific queries with the plaintiff. She was not satisfied this established a defence.
McCool further alleged that the receiver’s appointment and sale process were wrongful, that the properties were sold too quickly, and that valuable contents were removed without notice. He said the properties’ true value would have cleared the debt and claimed losses by way of counterclaim. The plaintiff relied on contemporaneous valuations which, it said, showed sales above market value, and maintained that McCool had been given opportunities to collect possessions. The judge found no evidence supporting the alleged quick sale, noted that the receiver had written to McCool about collecting property, and found that the mortgage allowed appointment of a receiver.
Concluding that the defendant’s affidavit evidence raised no bona fide defence, the court entered summary judgment and determined the matter should not proceed to a full plenary hearing. The judgment does not state the amount of continuing interest or a separate order on the counterclaim.