The High Court has awarded Havbell DAC summary judgment of €1,869,031.90 against Harry Hilliard and Ursula Hilliard, jointly and severally, over six loans originally made by Permanent TSB.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 6 December 2019. The application was for summary judgment, and the court considered whether the defendants had shown an arguable defence requiring a plenary hearing. It was not a trial of the disputed allegations about the loans or the receiver.
The loans were made between 2003 and 2007 and secured against properties in Dublin, Kildare and Longford. Irish Life and Permanent PLC assigned the debts to Havbell in June 2015. The defendants did not dispute that the loans had been drawn down or that the debts were assigned. Havbell said repayments had been missed and that it had demanded repayment of all six facilities in November 2016, followed by a further solicitor’s demand in January 2017.
The defendants disputed Havbell’s entitlement to call in every loan and challenged the interest applied to the accounts. They said a €160,000 payment made in 2007 had been credited to the wrong account, costing them nearly €52,000 in potential savings. They also relied on an accountant’s report questioning rates on two standard variable rate accounts. Separately, they alleged that a receiver appointed over secured properties sold two at an undervalue and failed to account properly for rental income.
Mr Justice Barr found that arrears existed on all six accounts and that the loan terms entitled Havbell to demand repayment of the general indebtedness. He found that the demands were lawful and that the amount claimed was properly due. The court declined to admit the accountant’s report because it contained no evidence of the author’s relevant qualifications or experience. The judge also said that, even if considered, the report did not establish an arguable defence on interest rates or the 2007 payment; there was no documentary evidence that the payment had been wrongly credited.
The judge held that allegations about the receiver’s conduct did not provide a defence to Havbell’s claim, with no evidence that Havbell directed or interfered with the receivership. He also found no evidence of misapplied rents, and noted that the properties had been sold at public auction. The court therefore entered summary judgment for Havbell in the claimed amount, jointly and severally against both defendants.