The High Court has entered summary judgment for Danske Bank A/S, trading as National Irish Bank, on its claim against Martin Feeley and Leo Halpin over a commercial loan. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Ryan on 9 December 2011. The court did not send the claim to a plenary hearing.
The bank sought €4,861,204.37 plus continuing interest. It had agreed a €5 million facility in November 2007, drawn down by the defendants that month. The two-year loan required interest-only payments during its term. After the term expired in November 2009, the parties did not agree a restructuring or refinancing. The bank demanded repayment in June 2011.
The defendants argued that they had grounds to defend the claim. They said the loan was non-recourse and the bank could recover only from development land in Rathdrum; that a bank official had agreed not to demand the principal while interest was serviced; and that the bank had wrongly withdrawn funds from the interest account and collected excessive interest. The bank disputed those claims.
On the non-recourse argument, the court found no support in the facility documents. The judgment records that Halpin acknowledged the terms did not restrict the bank to the Rathdrum land and provided for joint and several liability. The court also rejected an argument that the bank had to sell the land before pursuing the borrowers for the balance.
Halpin said a bank official, Drew Corry, agreed at a February 2010 meeting that the loan would not be called in while interest was paid. Corry denied making such an agreement and said he lacked authority to alter the terms. The judge assessed the conflicting accounts under the summary judgment test, which asks whether a defendant has a real or bona fide defence and whether the account is credible. He found the alleged agreement not credible, citing the defendants’ subsequent correspondence and conduct, which did not refer to such an arrangement.
The court said the complaints about withdrawals from the interest fund and excessive interest did not provide a defence to the claim. Even if the bank had acted unjustifiably, the judge said, the issue would concern premature action or amounts to be credited; the amount claimed already reflected a credit.
After concluding that the defendants had no defence to the claim, the court ordered judgment for the bank on its summary summons. The judgment does not state a separate final figure in its conclusion beyond the amount claimed by the bank.