Judgment: 2015-02-06 · Court archive

High Court awards Deutsche Bank €2.325m in transferred loan case

The court granted IBRC an extension to appeal a refusal of summary judgment, found the borrower had no bona fide defence on the evidence before it, and substituted Deutsche Bank as plaintiff after the loan transfer.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 86

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Gavin Peacock (Defendant)
  • Deutsche Bank A.G.
What

The court granted IBRC an extension to appeal a refusal of summary judgment, found the borrower had no bona fide defence on the evidence before it, and substituted Deutsche Bank as plaintiff after the loan transfer.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • England
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has ordered Gavin Peacock to pay Deutsche Bank A.G. €2,325,362.12 after finding he had not established a bona fide defence to a claim over outstanding loans. The court also substituted Deutsche Bank for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC) as plaintiff after finding the loans had been transferred to it.

The High Court has ordered Gavin Peacock to pay Deutsche Bank A.G. €2,325,362.12 after finding he had not established a bona fide defence to a claim over outstanding loans. The court also substituted Deutsche Bank for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (IBRC) as plaintiff after finding the loans had been transferred to it.

Mr Justice Barr’s judgment, delivered on 6 February 2015, followed an appeal by IBRC against the High Court Master’s refusal of summary judgment. The judge extended the time to lodge that appeal by one day, finding that IBRC had formed the intention to appeal within the deadline and that its solicitor had satisfactorily explained the delay.

IBRC had sought judgment for €2,325,362.12, which it said was due on the loans as of its application on 24 September 2014. The original summary summons, issued in 2012, claimed €6,331,018.60 and £789,298.66. The judgment records that the loans were used to buy apartments in England and that the bank sold 18 properties taken as security, applying the proceeds to reduce the account balances.

Peacock argued that correspondence and documents he sent to the bank had settled or discharged the debts. He claimed that the bank’s failure to answer within deadlines he set amounted to agreement. The judge found that IBRC had repeatedly rejected those claims and had not agreed to the terms Peacock sought to impose. The correspondence did not settle the debts or prevent the bank from enforcing repayment, the judgment said.

The court considered the summary judgment test, including whether there was a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence. It concluded that Peacock’s letters and purported affidavits disclosed no realistic defence to the proceedings. The judgment is a decision on the summary judgment application; it does not determine separate counterclaim allegations Peacock said he might pursue.

The court also considered IBRC’s application to substitute Deutsche Bank as plaintiff. It found that the loans were included in a loan sale deed dated 28 March 2014 and transferred by a deed dated 23 May 2014. Having found the transfer appropriate, the judge ordered Deutsche Bank substituted as plaintiff and entitled to judgment for €2,325,362.12.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review